ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Eight former Bar presidents demand answers on Riza Aziz deal
Published
Modified 10:12 am
Eight
former Bar presidents have issued a joint statement criticising the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) decision involving money
laundering charges against Riza Aziz, describing the deal as
“perplexing”.
"The information provided thus far gives the
impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution,” said the statement which
is signed by Zainur Zakaria, Kuthubul Zaman, Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga
Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan, Lim Chee Wee, Christopher Leong and
Steven Thiru.
"We are left wondering why the prosecution is
seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the decision taken and why
Malaysia appears to have been short-changed."
They
said the deal gave “the perception that an accused person can be
exonerated of serious crimes if he is willing to pay back part of the
illicit proceeds of his alleged crimes”.
“It is indefensible and
outrageous to allow an accused person to buy himself out of a serious
criminal offence. It is an abuse of process that would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.”
In the statement, the
former Bar presidents urged attorney-general Idrus Harun to look into
rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza.
On
May 13, the Sessions Court granted movie producer Riza a DNAA for five
charges of money laundering involving U$248 million (RM1.08 billion)
linked to 1MDB funds.
Judge Azman Ahmad allowed the application by ad hoc
prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram on grounds that an agreement had been reached
under which the accused would repay a portion of the money to the
federal government.
The decision has subsequently resulted in a
war of words between anti-corruption body MACC and former
attorney-general Tommy Thomas over who was responsible for the plea
bargain, which appeared to favour the accused.
Full statement
Below is the statement of the eight former Bar presidents:
We
thirst for information, and seek answers; especially in respect of
matters of public interest and importance. The recent withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution against Riza Aziz for
serious criminal offences is one such matter.
Riza
Aziz was facing five charges under Section 4 (1) of the Anti-Money
Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (“Act 613”). It was
alleged that he had received monies totalling US$248 million linked to
1MDB between April 2011 and December 2012. He pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
If convicted of any of the five charges, he could have
been imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or liable for a fine not
exceeding RM5 million, or both.
The decision of the
attorney-general to agree to a discharge not amounting to an acquittal
in the prosecution of Riza Aziz for alleged money laundering offences is
perplexing.
The information provided thus far gives the
impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution.
We are left wondering why
the prosecution is seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the
decision taken, and why Malaysia appears to have been short-changed. To
leave these questions unanswered is unsatisfactory.
It appears
from the media release issued by the attorney-general on May 17 that the
decision to bring about the discharge not amounting to an acquittal –
which resulted from a discontinuance of the prosecution for all five
charges – was not made because the attorney-general apprehended concerns
over the strength of the prosecution’s case, or the sustainability of
any of the charges, against Riza Aziz.
Controversial tape recordings
There
is nothing to readily suggest that the case against Riza Aziz would
fail. We are also reminded of the controversial tape recordings disclosed
by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, allegedly of the former
prime minister, Najib Razak, and stepfather of Riza Aziz, requesting a
member of a Middle Eastern royal family to assist by concocting an
agreement to cover up the alleged 1MDB monies remitted to Riza Aziz.
Instead,
the attorney-general’s decision was based on an agreement between the
prosecution and Riza Aziz, for him to disgorge assets amounting to
US$108 million, and cash of approximately US$14 million, both of which
are allegedly linked to 1MDB, and to surrender the “Metropolis” poster
and pay a compound under Section 92 of Act 613. It has been reported
that the compound payable is RM500,000.
Riza
Aziz was prosecuted for offences under Act 613, and was facing five
charges. We are mindful that the wording of Section 92(1) to (4)
suggests or envisages that a compound may be applicable, and may be
offered by the “competent authority or relevant enforcement agency”,
albeit with the consent of the public prosecutor, only before a person
has been prosecuted.
After charges are laid, Section 92 is no
longer applicable, and only the attorney-general qua public prosecutor
has carriage of the matter. The attorney-general should look into
rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza
Aziz, on the grounds that the agreement could well be unlawful and in
contravention of the provisions of Section 92.
It is clear that
the disgorgement, surrender, and the compound pursuant to the agreement
would not result in a full recovery of the US$248 million under the five
charges against him. Indeed, the disgorged assets totalling US$108
million is only about 43 percent of the US$248 million that Riza Aziz is
alleged to have laundered.
Buying oneself out of criminal offence
It
is indefensible and outrageous to allow an accused person to buy
himself out of a serious criminal offence. It is an abuse of process
that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
It
is important to note that one should not conflate the recovery of assets
through forfeiture proceedings with the prosecution for criminal
offences. The two are distinct legal processes that hold the accused to
different requirements of accountability for the crimes, and ought to be
pursued separately and cumulatively against the alleged wrongdoer. In
Riza Aziz’s case, both proceedings were afoot until the fateful decision
to beget the discharge not amounting to an acquittal in the
money-laundering case.
It also appears that the disgorged assets
amounting to US$108 million constitute the assets already seized by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) of the United States of America as the
subject-matter of forfeiture proceedings against Riza Aziz.
Thus,
the seized assets are destined to be returned in due course to
Malaysia, without any need for an agreement with Riza Aziz. This has
called into question the efficacy of or legitimacy for the agreement
with Riza Aziz. It appears to be superfluous, as nothing substantively
new has been offered or brought to the table.
It is unclear if the
agreement with Riza Aziz also includes his providing full cooperation
and actionable evidence as to the dealings, transactions and money trail
which could lead to a successful prosecution in the 1MDB case, as well
as giving evidence as a witness for the prosecution. If so, then this
raises further questions as to whether the prosecution has obtained in
hand such evidence before the withdrawal of the five charges, and why
the prosecution thinks he would make a reliable witness given his
familial relationship with an accused person in the other 1MDB related
prosecution.
In the media release by the attorney-general, he disclosed that he was advised that his predecessor, Tommy Thomas (below),
had agreed “in principle” to a representation made by Riza Aziz for the
disgorgement of assets and payment of compound under Section 92 of Act
613. It begs the question who had advised or informed him of this.
Tommy Thomas has denied
making any decision to enter into an agreement; and in effect explained
that he was only agreeable in principle to consider the representation.
This is a far cry from saying that Tommy Thomas had previously agreed
to the deal. Tommy Thomas resigned on Feb 28, and it appears that the
present decision was made thereafter.
No cogent reasons given
It
is also apparent that the media release has not disclosed any
satisfactory answers as to why the prosecution decided to make a deal of
this nature. It provides no information as to why the prosecution was
withdrawn, other than that it was done to get some money back.
Article
145(3) of the Federal Constitution confers the attorney-general, as the
public prosecutor, with exclusive power, exercisable at his discretion,
to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence. In
discharging this constitutional power, the attorney-general is entitled
to consult, take advice and weigh all relevant factors, including
antecedent facts. However, the ultimate decision under Article 145 (3)
is that of the incumbent attorney-general.
As the ultimate
decision-maker, the attorney-general is accountable for the exercise of
the constitutional power and discretion to discontinue the prosecution;
because the discretion and power are exercised on behalf of the people,
in the interest of justice and the public good. The office of the
attorney-general, especially qua the public prosecutor, is an office of
public trust. It is only in dictatorial, totalitarian or authoritarian
regimes that the exercise of such discretion and power is exempted from
public scrutiny.
The decision of the attorney-general must
therefore be supported by valid, rational and cogent reasons. The media
release by the attorney-general does not provide such reasons, and it
does not therefore satisfy the requirements of accountability.
The
agreement thus far revealed is simplistic. A question that begs an
answer is whether there is more to the agreement than what has been
disclosed. There is a perception that there may be more. In this regard,
the timing of the agreement with Riza Aziz has given rise to
speculation. It occurred during the currency of the uncertainties with
regard to proceedings in Parliament, and it preceded the signing of the
previously elusive memorandum of understanding for the fledgling
Perikatan Nasional political pact.
It is therefore imperative, in
the interest of maintaining public confidence, that clear, rational and
cogent reasons be promptly provided.
The people require, deserve
and are entitled to clear, cogent and intelligent reasons and answers
for the performance of constitutional functions and duties, as well as
the exercise of constitutional powers and discretion. The failure or
inability to provide such reasons and answers must themselves be
explained. There should never be an impression given that one may buy
oneself out of a prosecution without penal accountability for a serious
criminal offence.
“It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable.”- Jean-Baptiste Poquelin
Signatories
Zainur Zakaria
Kuthubul Zaman
Yeo Yang Poh
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Ragunath Kesavan
Lim Chee Wee
Christopher Leong
Steven Thiru
There was an amendment in 2014, and the new section 4 came into force on October 2014 - so it all depends when Riza committed the offence, if after the new section 4 came into being, then if convicted of
any of the five charges, his sentence will be so much more higher - If offence committed before that new section 4 came into being, then maybe 'he could have been imprisoned for a maximum of
five years, or liable for a fine not exceeding RM 5 million, or both.' for each one of the 5 offences. Now, the new section 4, after amendment - significantly increases the sentence
- First, for the offence, there is NO - option, fine OR prison. On conviction, sentence includes both a prison term AND a mandatory fine.
- Second, with regard the prison term, the maximum is now 15 years,no more 5 years.
- Third, with regard to fine, what is set for this offence is a mandatory MINIMUM fine only so, the fine would be the MInimum or a much higher amount.
- Fourth, the MINIMUM fine set is no more RM5million - it is really very much higher - it is 'five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the
offence was committed' - in Riza's case, it is really FIVE time USD 248 million = USD 1,240 million. So, the MINIMUM fine is 'whichever is the higher' - so, in Riza's 5 charges, it certainly will be way way higher than 5 million.
HENCE, that USD 1,240 million is merely the minimum fine and as such the fine could be so much more higher...there is a no maximum limit for fine in this offence.
4 Offence of money laundering[ ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001]
(1) Any person who-
(a)
engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction that involves
proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence; (b)
acquires, receives, possesses, disguises, transfers, converts,
exchanges, carries, disposes of or uses proceeds of an unlawful activity
or instrumentalities of an offence; (c) removes from or brings into Malaysia, proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence; or (d)
conceals, disguises or impedes the establishment of the true nature,
origin, location, movement, disposition, title of, rights with respect
to, or ownership of, proceeds of an unlawful activity or
instrumentalities of an offence,
commits a money
laundering offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding fifteen years andshall also be liable to a fine
of not less than five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the
offence was committed or five million ringgit, whichever is the higher.
HENCE, THE DATE THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED IS VERY IMPORTANT - if before the new Section 4 came into force, RIZA is very lucky ...but if the alleged offence was committed after October 2014(if not mistaken), the new punishments come into play
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant
-
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant
fo...
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment