PUTRAJAYA: Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali yesterday maintained his stance that 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) officials did not make a false statement.
He said 1MDB had rightly furnished the information required for the purpose of remittance as it thrice obtained permission from Bank Negara to make remittances on Sept 29, 2009, Sept 6, 2010 and May 20, 2011.
As far as 1MDB was concerned, he said it needed to fill up the relevant form and respond to the queries by Bank Negara.
“If Bank Negara does not request for certain or specific information, how could 1MDB be faulted as it has filled up the form as required and responded to queries made?
“The officials of 1MDB at all material times, that is, during the process of obtaining the permission had complied with the directions given, hence the permission/approvals were granted.
“Until and unless it can be shown that the officials had deliberately, or knew or even recklessly provided information that were false in material particulars, they had committed no offence under paragraph (4) (b) of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Exchange Control Act 1953,” Mohamed Apandi told a news conference here today.
He said Bank Negara vide a letter dated Oct 1 this year had requested for a review of the decision citing omission on the part of 1MDB, i.e non-disclosure of certain information.
He said as far as omission was concerned, there was no obligation to inform unless requested.
“In this respect and the fact that there is now new evidence made available, we do not see the necessity to review,” he stressed.
Earlier, Mohamed Apandi explained that Bank Negara did not take more than three days to grant the said permissions on all three occasions
(Sept 29, 2009, Sept 6, 2010 and May 20, 2011).
“It is further noted that the relevant (Bank Negara) ECM forms, namely 09A (investment abroad-equity) and 06B (credit facility to non-resident in foreign currency) do not require the applicant to supply the name/s of beneficiary owner or the bank/s account numbers of the recipient/s or the manner as to how the funds are to be channeled,” he said.
The attorney-general said when 1MDB requested Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad (Deutsche Bank) to remit to a different account, Deutsche Bank sought clarification from Bank Negara.
He added that Bank Negara responded by advising Deutsche Bank that it being a business decision and as long as there was no deviation from the purpose intended, no further query was made by Bank Negara at that particular time.
Mohamed Apandi said Bank Negara being the controller did not stop the remittance or direct Deutsche Bank to advise 1MDB to revert to Bank Negara for a review of the permission.
“Clearly, there was no information or further information requested by Bank Negara at that material time. 1MDB rightly, furnished the information required for the purpose of the remittance,” he said.
Mohamed Apandi said the relevant forms for remittance in the case did not
require the applicant to state the bank account number and the beneficiary of the same as in ordinary remittance which would enable Bank Negara to go one step further to verify where the funds will end up to.
“Since there is no requirement, the omission on 1MDB officials’ part to disclose is not an offence under the Exchange Control Act 1953,” he said. — Bernama