So Najib has no idea who gave him RM42m?

Lawyer: Najib did not admit RM42m in account was from SRC

 John Malott: Let’s take a careful look at what PM Najib Razak’s lawyer Hafarizam Harun said.

He says that Najib admitted that RM42 million was deposited in his personal bank account. That is a quite an admission – that the prime minister of Malaysia took RM42 million from someone.

He adds that Najib never said that it came from SRC. Yes, Najib did not say it came from SRC, but he also did not deny former MCA chief Ling Liong Sik’s charge.

The SRC connection therefore is a very logical conclusion for everyone to draw, since the amount of money and the timing of the deposit (December 2014 to February 2015) were the same as what was reported by The Wall Street Journal.

So now that Najib has admitted that he got RM42 million, the questions for the PM are: where did the money come from, and what did you use it for?

Do you deny that it came from SRC, and do you deny, given the timing of the deposit and the recent reports of shopping sprees with SRC credit cards, that you used it for personal or family matters?

After all, there were no elections in Malaysia at that time.

Odin Tajué: John Malott is absolutely right. When we read statements made by lawyers, we need to study the phrases and the language used very carefully and not merely skim them.

By ‘language’, I don’t mean a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols but the application of phrases and the nuances the phrases carry. And this is not to suggest that lawyers are sneaky, although a few of them may be so.

The fact that Najib has not denied that the money has come from SRC implies that it has. Furthermore, the statement made, “However, the plaintiff (Najib) at all material times has no knowledge that it was channelled through two intermediaries as alleged by the defendants”, further implies that the source was SRC, except that Najib has claimed to have no knowledge of the money having been channelled to his personal bank account through the two subsidiary companies.

And furthermore, the possibility of the same amount having originated from a source other than SRC is so very remote as to be completely absent.

Najib is obviously in a quandary here. He cannot claim that the money has come from some imagined Arab, for that reason simply holds no water, nor can he claim that it was meant for corporate social responsibility (CSR) purposes for the simple reason that funds paid out for CSR programmes are utilised legitimately.

Aries46: If I am not mistaken, that the monies originated from SRC subsidiaries Gandingan Mentari and Ihsan Perdana was reported by WSJ and Sarawak Report.

This was also the subject of the draft charge sheet allegedly prepared by the late deputy public prosecutor Kevin Morais but denied by attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) must shed light on this having investigated this caper. Regardless of proof of its source, Najib did admit that RM42 million was deposited into his personal account in AmBank.

If it did not come from SRC then from where? Arab donor/s again?

Anonymous_1404717623: How can the PM admit money going into his personal private account but refuse to explain where it came from, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal?

Remember, he is holding a public office, he should give us the details and not hide behind the shield of MACC investigation.

FellowMalaysian: The line of defence by Najib’s lawyers has taken a definitive turn lately based on their arguments in the RM2.6 billion ‘donation’ as well this RM42 million ‘deposit’ cases alone.

We are led to believe that a bank account holder, just any sane person’s will do, is entitled to receive or be deposited into his accounts immeasurable amount of monies to the tune of millions – and in this case billions – of ringgit into his kitty and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

What more a person of the stature of the prime minister of a country who is surely entitled to far more ‘accesses and liberal movements’ than anyone else in the country?

If the regulatory and enforcement agencies and institutions have not found any incriminatory evidence, which they have not or have not wished to disclose, the fact remains that Najib should not be held accountable to disclosing the name of his donors or depositors.

LKY: I think Najib now regret suing as he got into a bigger mess than he ever expected even before the case appeared in court.

How is he to sit on the witness stand if you admit the money went into your bank account, and as a top public servant, asking the people who entrusted you to run the country to proof it.

As a civil servant you are in deep trouble if you cannot proof why such a large sum of money got into your account.

Vijay47: Najib said that he “has no knowledge that it (RM42 million) was channelled through two intermediaries as alleged”.

Note, the word used is “has”, not “had” – meaning that Najib still has no clue who put the money into his account.

What can he do if kind Arabs or others insist on transferring millions into his account? Which according to MACC is not corruption. But any way you slice it, Najib’s had it.

Rick Teo: Najib, just tell Malaysians who was the donor of the RM42 million if it didn’t come from SRC. Was it another Arab who donated it?

Why beat around the bush if it is a genuine donation? Najib has been elusive from day one. Till now he can’t even say who donated the money.

We were told not to believe in the Nigerian scam where lots of money could be deposited in our bank account if we reply to their email.

Well, it looks like one man did response to the Nigerians. And he is laughing all the way to the bank because he was rewarded with RM2.6 billion.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.