BN running out of excuses not to nab Jho Low

Nazri: Action against Jho Low only if he commits offence in M’sia

Anonymous_1406820656: It seems Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz is happy to have his money stolen by a compatriot but because the thief has conspired to move the money offshore, then he says he has no rights to take action against the thief.

The money was originally in Malaysia and belonged to “him”. Somehow it was taken from him “without his knowledge or authority”. This is a crime that has occurred in Malaysia.

He seems to accept that crimes have been committed overseas by the likes of Jho Low. Which in turn infers that there is substance to US Department of Justice’s (DOJ), Singapore’s and other overseas legal proceedings which are all tied back to money allegedly stolen from 1MDB.

How then can he claim no crime has been committed in Malaysia? And if Jho Low has committed no crimes in Malaysia, how come he does not dare come back to Malaysia?

Of course, by his comments, Nazri is deviating dangerously from the “there has been no theft from 1MDB” party line.

Newday: Nazri, the DOJ files clearly show the paper trail all the way back to when 1MDB was a state sovereign fund in Terengganu.

Jho Low was clearly the key mastermind. So, what do you not understand about crimes committed in this country?

The one positive is that by your statement that “no crime committed in Malaysia”, at least you are inferring that a crime was actually committed (even if not in Malaysia). Yes, one tiny step forward.

Oxymoronictendencies: Going by the logic of Nazri, why are there police investigations against MACC chief Dzulkifli Ahmad for a purported offence that took place in Bali? Or for attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali to set up a special task force to monitor the probe?

While investigations, prosecutions and convictions over the 1MDB saga have taken place worldwide for offences committed in their respective jurisdictions, they must certainly be watching with amazement as to why no action has been taken against the perpetrators at the very source of the events leading to those crimes.

In this context, the reasoning given by someone with a legal background like Nazri does sound rather dumb and silly.

Res Ipsa: So, if a person cheated a Malaysian company and remit a large amount of money into his overseas bank account through a fraudulent act, he has not committed a crime in Malaysia?

I am truly enlightened. All the conmen in the world, please come to Malaysia to ply your trade here.

Anonymous #13291217: Nazri, let me give you a very simple illustration to show your stupidity.

While you were travelling abroad, you dropped your wallet. Your bodyguard, who was just behind you, picked it up, emptied its contents and spent all your money.

Your girlfriend, who was beside you, saw what he did but both of you cannot do anything because it happened abroad. Like that, Nazri?

Hplooi: None is he so blind as he who not see. That best describes you, Nazri, and a horde of enforcement agencies such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) and MACC.

The then CEO of 1MDB authorised the fraudulent transfer of US$700 million to Good Star account, controlled by Jho Low, instead of 1MDB-PetroSaudi joint venture (JV). No action has been taken against the CEO. Instead, he was given a cushy job in the PM’s Department.

Malaysian Official 1 (MO1) had “681 American pies” transferred to his Ambank personal account. Documented money trail showed it originated from a bank account in Singapore also controlled by Jho Low.

MO1 later returned US$620 million to the same Singapore account and the money used to buy real estate overseas, luxury yacht, jewellery, etc. As a minimum, MO1 had breached the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).

Yet, no action had been taken against him. Care to explain why, Nazri?

Apa Nama: Nazri, simple common sense will tell you that the money belongs to Malaysians. In today’s world, money could be stolen with a click of the button.

Jho Low still can enter a Malaysian bank’s website and transfer the money elsewhere when he is not physically present here.

Pretzel Dog: Are you sure, Nazri, that you are a lawyer? By your reasoning, Jho Low can return to Malaysia and walk about free like you and I because he siphoned money belonging to the people in a foreign jurisdiction.

Maybe you are saying this because you have run out of reasons not to go after him.

Anonymous 2460391489930458: These acts were committed in Malaysia. 1MDB is a Malaysian company. Jho Low is a Malaysian. (a Penangite to be exact).

This man had caused massive amount of funds to be allegedly misappropriated from a Malaysian company and this same Malaysian was on Malaysian soil when all these offences were allegedly committed.

Why isn’t he subject to Malaysian jurisdiction? Is it because the stolen money was transferred abroad into foreign accounts? So, if the stolen money never made it out of the country, only then will this case be pursued by the Malaysian authorities?

In that case, all Malaysian money launderers who use the overseas financial system to launder money will get away scot-free.

Not Convinced: There is indeed a case where money did not leave Malaysia – the RM42 million from SRC International which was transferred into MO1’s bank account.

Nazri, wasn’t that a crime committed in Malaysia? Why was MO1 not nabbed?

Hamzah Paiman: It’s the rakyat’s money, Nazri. It doesn’t matter where the crime was committed, it is still our money which has gone missing.

Nazri only reinforces the fact that Umno-BN will not make an effort to retrieve money stolen from the rakyat if the thief is hiding overseas.

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.