Saturday, June 24, 2017

1MDB and Deloitte May have breached the companies ACT of 1965

The statement by Delotte and 1 MDB that the audited financial statement of 2013 and 2014 of 1 MDB can no longer be relied upon posed a very serious question of whether both accounts in the respective years were properly audited by Delotte.
 Audited Accounts under the company's Act when audited by auditors constitute a final position of a company's financial status and lawfully should represent a fair and true of the company's financial status. Within a prescribed period the accounts are then submitted to the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia ( Companies Commission of Malaysia) for their record and retention. For all intent and purposes, all audited accounts of companies submitted to the SSM are deemed to be final and definitely not allowed to be altered or amended in any way. The general acceptance is that all accounts audited should have been properly audited by the appointed auditors registered with the SSM. Therefore it is extremely unusual for Deloitte to now issue a statement that the 2013 and 2014 accounts they audited cannot be relied upon. This is tantamount to saying that the accounts audited by them was not accurate in the first place and that no proper standard of accounting procedures were adopted in their course of the audit. If any of the transactions or due diligence was of a doubtful nature then Deloitte should have made a qualification on their accounts. Did they make any qualification? No they didn't and that certainly constitute a gross negligence on their part.
The revelation of the court papers by DOJ last week only serve to jolt Deloitte into a state of fear that they had not done a proper audit when the DOJ 's 136 page of court documents outlined with clarity how the various 1MDB transactions unfolded through a web of shell companies.
Since 1MDB board concurred with Deloitte that the 2013 and 2014 cannot be relied upon, this serves to confirm that in view of the elaborate disclosures by DOJ, the audited accounts of 2013 and 2014 was no longer consistent with the 136 pages of court papers filed by DOJ. Deloitte must have been aware that with the comprehensive  investigation being conducted in the U.S by DOJ, FBI, and IRS, it is most likely that their revelations was most likely to be more accurate than the audited accounts of 1MDB which in all probability was manipulated to conceal the money transferred to third party accounts totally unrelated to  International Petroleum Investment company. 
The Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) should immediately conduct an enquiry to ascertain the reason why and how the 2013 and 2014 audited accounts did not bear any semblance to the transactions in the 136 pages of court documents disclosed by the DOJ. The companies commission should then determine whether any breached of the companies ACT of 1965 occurred in the submission of their false audited accounts of 2013 and 2014.
 The most probable assumption one can derive was that the 2013 and 2014 1MDB accounts were deliberately and wilfully tampered with to conceal various transactions that entailed money transferred to a series of shell companies which ultimately found its way to Riza Aziz and the Malaysian Official 1

A-G, IGP and MACC response to DOJ civil suit shocking.

With the revelation by the DOJ in U.S about the civil forfeiture suits against Jho Low and Riza Aziz, the damnest evidence should have opened a Pandora box that would caused the AG, PDRM and MACC to commence immediate investigation. Instead, the response by the head of the three branches of our law enforcement office is shocking to say the least. The AG had the gall to say that there was no misappropriation of 1 MDB funds and that Najib was not fingered in the civil suit. Hence in his intelligent conclusion no further action was necessary. The IGP showed his incompetence by saying that since it was a civil action to forfeit the asset he would not meddle in the case. And as for the MACC head his only comment was that they were working with the FBI as required under the U.N convention.

In all seriousness,U.S$3.5 billion of our sovereign wealth fund was misappropriated and here we have three branches of law enforcement displaying a nonchalant attitude as if it was none of their business to investigate  under the pretext that it was a civil matter. Instead of instructing the custodian of law to investigate, the P.M deem fit to be more concerned about the accused being charged for embezzlement and money laundering. Should he not be more concerned that U.S $3.5 billion from the 1MDB  sovereign wealth fund  was being exposed as being misappropriated under his watch?
Quite understandably, the court papers mentioned 36 times an individual with the name of Malaysian Official One who happens to be a relative of Riza Aziz and who had through a scheme of laundering transferred a substantial sum of money from the 1MDB funds to his own personal account. And without a shadow of doubt, the Malaysian official one is none other than our P.M , Najib