KUASA TANPA TANGGUNGJAWAB
Dari antara kes-kes yang dibawa ke mahkamah sekitar persoalan skandal berkaitan 1MDB saya dapati kes yang dibawa oleh Dato' Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan pada 21hb Ogos, 2017 ialah yang paling tepat sasarannya.
Seksyen 117 Memorandum & Article of Assosiation 1MDB memberi kuasa bertindak kepada semua kakitangan tanpa tanggungjawab bersyaratkan semua tindakan di bawah seksyen ini adalah atas persetujuan Perdana Menteri.
SEKSYEN YANG MENGHALALKAN JENAYAH
Seksyen 117 ini menghalalkan semua 'jenayah' kewangan yang dilakukan oleh pegawai dan kakitangan 1MDB kerana ianya mengembalikan semua tanggungjawab kepada Perdana Menteri yang sah dilantik oleh KDYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong, setelah parti yang dipimpinnya memenangi PRU ke 13.
Ahli-ahli Lembaga Pengarah dan pegawai-pegawai tinggi 1MDB sudah tentu telah dimaklumkan bahawa dengan adanya Seksyen 117 ini maka semua tindakan yang melibatkan kemasukan dan pengeluaran wang 1MDB adalah tanggungjawab Perdana Menteri. Oleh itu mereka tidak perlu bimbang ke mana wangnya mengalir.
Ahli Lembaga Pengarah, jika diketepikan oleh pegawai atau tidak dipedulikan oleh pegawai untuk menjawab sebarang pertanyaan berkaitan perbelanjaan yang dilakukan, juga tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk bertanya, atau berbuat sesuatu, jika pegawai berkenaan mempunyai hubungan langsung dengan Menteri Kewangan/Perdana Menteri.
Jika saham 1MDB dijual di pasaran saham antarabangsa sudah tentu tidak ada orang yang berakal yang akan membeli sahamnya kecuali jika mereka tidak terbaca Seksyen 117 yang ada di dalam M & A syarikat 1MDB.
Seksyen 117 ini juga menidakkan adanya kepakaran dan kebijaksanaan yang ada pada usahawan dan para profesyenal dalam membuat keputusan pelaburan dan perniagaan yang menguntungkan syarikat. Semuanya digantungkan kepada kemampuan Perdana Menteri dan Menteir Kewengan yang dilantik olehnya sendiri.
Jika saham 1MDB dijual di pasaran saham antarabangsa sudah tentu tidak ada orang yang berakal yang akan membeli sahamnya kecuali jika mereka tidak terbaca Seksyen 117 yang ada di dalam M & A syarikat 1MDB.
Seksyen 117 ini juga menidakkan adanya kepakaran dan kebijaksanaan yang ada pada usahawan dan para profesyenal dalam membuat keputusan pelaburan dan perniagaan yang menguntungkan syarikat. Semuanya digantungkan kepada kemampuan Perdana Menteri dan Menteir Kewengan yang dilantik olehnya sendiri.
TANTANGAN KE ATAS INTEGRITI INDIVIDU
Oleh kerana begitu menariknya habuan dari sikap toleransi terhadap kewujudan Seksyen 117 maka hanya individu yang tinggi integriti dan rasa tanggungjawab sebagai seorang nasionalis yang berugama saja yang akan melahirkan tentangannya terhadap penyelewengan yang diketahui atau disyaki berlaku, atau terus meninggalkan gelanggang 1MDB.
PENASIHAT MENGKAJI KISAH SKANDAL DI DUNIA
Sudah tentu tindakan pengambilan alih TIA (Trengganu Investment Authority) oleh 1MDB yang memasukkan Seksyen 117 dalam Memorandum & Article of Assosciation-nya adalah satu keputusan yang dicadangkan oleh seseorang yang telah mempelajari sejarah skandal kewangan yang pernah berlaku didunia.
Kehebatan perancangan 1MDB ialah kerana ianya membabitkan KAKITANGAN KERAJAAN, RAJA-RAJA, PERDANA MENTERI, MENTERI-MENTERI, SEMUA ANGGOTA PARLIMEN, KAKITANGAN BADAN KEHAKIMAN, PASUKAN POLIS DAN KONSEP DEMOKRASI.
SAMAN DATUK SERI KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN TERHADAP ROSMAH, JHO LOW DAN 1MDB DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI JALAN DUTA KUALA LUMPUR HARI INI IALAH SEPERTI BERIKUT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STAATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. /2017 Between
Datuk Seri Khairuddin bin Abu Hassan (NRIC No. 620204-07-5141) - Plaintiff
And
1. Datin Seri Hajjah Rosmah Mansor
2. Low Taek Jho
3. 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (Company No. 848230-V)
The Defendants.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia. He is a taxpayer. He is a taxpayer. He brings this suit as a public interest litigation. According he has sufficient standing to bring this suit.
2. The first defendant is and was at all material times to this action, the wife of Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato' Seri Haji Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak who controls the third defendant. Her residential address is at {resemt 10. 62000 Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
3. The third defendant was incorporated on 27th February 2009 as Trengganu Investment Authority Berhad. It later changed its name to 1 Malaysia Development Berhad ("1MDB") its registered office address is at Level 8, Menara IMC, No. 8, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4. Article 117 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the second defendant states as follow:
"117. For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding anything in the Articles, none of the following shall take effect without the prior written approval of the Prime Minister.
(a) any amendments to the Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, whether wholly or in part,
(b) any appointment and removal of any Director (including the Managing Director and alternate Directors, as the case may be) and the Senior Management TEam of the Company.
(c) any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the Company, the national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia; and for this purpose, the determination of what constitutes "national interest", "national security" and "policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia" shall be made by the Federal Government of Malaysia and such determination shall be final and conclusive."
5. The plaintiff will rely on Article 117 for its full terms and effect at the trial of this action.
6. The third defendant is the sovereign fund of Malaysia. At all material times, it obtains about USD6.5 billion through borrowings which it obtained from overseas lenders. The third is and was at all material times the beneficial owner of the said USD6.5 billion.
7. The second defendant is a citizen of Malaysia who is now at large and absconding and his last known address is at He committed theft or alternatively as aforesaid. At all material times, he had no title in law or in equity over the monies comprised in the said loans.
8. Between June 2013 and March 2014, the second defendant acting through his agent one Tan Kim Loong (who is also at large and absconding) purchased jewellery from a company known as Loraine Schwartz from New York fro a sum of USD27.3 million which sum formed a part of the monies which the second defendant had stolen of misappropriated from the third defendant. Accordingly, the second defendant acquired no title to the said jewellery which remains the property of the third defendant.
Particulars of the said jewellery
I. One pink diamond is valued at USD23 million, and
II. Accompanying necklace is valued at USD4.3 million.
9. The said jewellery was received as a gift by the first defendant in or around March 2014 :The facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the gift as well as the date on which the gift was made is wihin the sole knowledge of the first defendant.
10. The first defendant gave no consideration for the said jewellery. Therefore, she had no title in law or in equity to it. The third defendant is therefore entitled to trace the said jewellery into the hands of the first defendant.
11. Although the said jewellery in law and in equity belongs to the third defendant, it will not bring nay suit or proceeding to recover the said jewellery from the first defendant because it is under the control of first defendant's husband who will not permit any action to be brought. In truth and fact, despite overwhelming evidence that its money was stolen or misappropriated by the second defendant's husband, the third defendant continues to deny this fact.
12. In the circustances of this case, there is no person who will bring an action to recover the said jewellery from the first defendant for the benefit of the third defendant and enforce the rule of law. The taxpayers of Malaysia will benefit through recovery of the said jewellery because they are the ultimate paymasters of the debts of the third defendant.
13. It is just and equitable in all circumstances of the case for the plaintiff to bring this action. It is in accordance with the rule of law that this action be brought.
14. Wherefore, the plaintiff claims against the first defendant the following relief:
a) An order directing the first defendant to return the said jewellery to the third defendant.
b) An order that the first and second defendants to pay equitable compensation to the third defendant for the misappropriation and use of the said jewellery and any monies belonging to the third defendant.
c) An order that the first and second defendants to pay equitable compensations to the third defendant for the misappropriation and use of the said jewellery and any monies belong to the third defendant.
d) The costs of this action be paid by the first and second defendants to the plaintiff.
e) Such further or other relief in this court deems just.
Dated 2017.
SAMAN DATUK SERI KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN TERHADAP ROSMAH, JHO LOW DAN 1MDB DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI JALAN DUTA KUALA LUMPUR HARI INI IALAH SEPERTI BERIKUT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STAATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. /2017 Between
Datuk Seri Khairuddin bin Abu Hassan (NRIC No. 620204-07-5141) - Plaintiff
And
1. Datin Seri Hajjah Rosmah Mansor
2. Low Taek Jho
3. 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (Company No. 848230-V)
The Defendants.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia. He is a taxpayer. He is a taxpayer. He brings this suit as a public interest litigation. According he has sufficient standing to bring this suit.
2. The first defendant is and was at all material times to this action, the wife of Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato' Seri Haji Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak who controls the third defendant. Her residential address is at {resemt 10. 62000 Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
3. The third defendant was incorporated on 27th February 2009 as Trengganu Investment Authority Berhad. It later changed its name to 1 Malaysia Development Berhad ("1MDB") its registered office address is at Level 8, Menara IMC, No. 8, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4. Article 117 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the second defendant states as follow:
"117. For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding anything in the Articles, none of the following shall take effect without the prior written approval of the Prime Minister.
(a) any amendments to the Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, whether wholly or in part,
(b) any appointment and removal of any Director (including the Managing Director and alternate Directors, as the case may be) and the Senior Management TEam of the Company.
(c) any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the Company, the national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia; and for this purpose, the determination of what constitutes "national interest", "national security" and "policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia" shall be made by the Federal Government of Malaysia and such determination shall be final and conclusive."
5. The plaintiff will rely on Article 117 for its full terms and effect at the trial of this action.
6. The third defendant is the sovereign fund of Malaysia. At all material times, it obtains about USD6.5 billion through borrowings which it obtained from overseas lenders. The third is and was at all material times the beneficial owner of the said USD6.5 billion.
7. The second defendant is a citizen of Malaysia who is now at large and absconding and his last known address is at He committed theft or alternatively as aforesaid. At all material times, he had no title in law or in equity over the monies comprised in the said loans.
8. Between June 2013 and March 2014, the second defendant acting through his agent one Tan Kim Loong (who is also at large and absconding) purchased jewellery from a company known as Loraine Schwartz from New York fro a sum of USD27.3 million which sum formed a part of the monies which the second defendant had stolen of misappropriated from the third defendant. Accordingly, the second defendant acquired no title to the said jewellery which remains the property of the third defendant.
Particulars of the said jewellery
I. One pink diamond is valued at USD23 million, and
II. Accompanying necklace is valued at USD4.3 million.
9. The said jewellery was received as a gift by the first defendant in or around March 2014 :The facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the gift as well as the date on which the gift was made is wihin the sole knowledge of the first defendant.
10. The first defendant gave no consideration for the said jewellery. Therefore, she had no title in law or in equity to it. The third defendant is therefore entitled to trace the said jewellery into the hands of the first defendant.
11. Although the said jewellery in law and in equity belongs to the third defendant, it will not bring nay suit or proceeding to recover the said jewellery from the first defendant because it is under the control of first defendant's husband who will not permit any action to be brought. In truth and fact, despite overwhelming evidence that its money was stolen or misappropriated by the second defendant's husband, the third defendant continues to deny this fact.
12. In the circustances of this case, there is no person who will bring an action to recover the said jewellery from the first defendant for the benefit of the third defendant and enforce the rule of law. The taxpayers of Malaysia will benefit through recovery of the said jewellery because they are the ultimate paymasters of the debts of the third defendant.
13. It is just and equitable in all circumstances of the case for the plaintiff to bring this action. It is in accordance with the rule of law that this action be brought.
14. Wherefore, the plaintiff claims against the first defendant the following relief:
a) An order directing the first defendant to return the said jewellery to the third defendant.
b) An order that the first and second defendants to pay equitable compensation to the third defendant for the misappropriation and use of the said jewellery and any monies belonging to the third defendant.
c) An order that the first and second defendants to pay equitable compensations to the third defendant for the misappropriation and use of the said jewellery and any monies belong to the third defendant.
d) The costs of this action be paid by the first and second defendants to the plaintiff.
e) Such further or other relief in this court deems just.
Dated 2017.
2 comments:
saya tlh menamakan 'penyakit' rosmah sebagai 'compulsive hoarding disorder'.
ia nya tiada penawar. jika dia meggunakan wang rakyat melalui 1MDB, maka jika d dapati bersalah, rumah pasonglah jawab nya.
jika terbukti dia juga terlibat secara langsung dgn pembunuhan kejam Altantuya, maka hukuman nya wajib setimpal dgn hukuman yg d jatuhkan keatas 'Mona Fendi'.
Peringkat mensabitkan masih lagi jauh perjalanan terutama halangannya.
Saman Rosmah samalah juga saman Najib kerana saling berkait.
Yang lebih penting apakah kesediaan mahkamah untuk mendengar dan membicarakannya.
Post a Comment