Friday, June 16, 2017

Rosmah Mansor's Choice: Surrender the diamonds, or join Najib in jail-On the other hand, has Rosmah joined Riza in seeking a settlement in exchange for cooperation

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Department Of Justice's latest statement of claim in the matter of the 1MDB theft includes this section:


346. As discussed in Part VI.CC below, a portion of the $620 million that MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 “returned” to the Tanore Account was passed through various additional accounts controlled by TAN and LOW and was ultimately used to purchase a 22-carat pink diamond pendant and necklace for the wife of MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1. The necklace was commissioned in July 2013, after the jeweler met with LOW, HUSSEINY, and the wife of MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 in Monaco. The purchase price of $27,300,000 was paid on or about September 10, 2013, using funds traceable to the $620 million payment from MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 to Tanore.



The DOJ seeks to seize the 22-carat pink diamond pendant and necklace that was purchased for Rosmah Mansor with money stolen from 1MDB.Rosmah has been given the opportunity to surrender the goods, and in the process admit to the obvious theft.

Of course, she could fight it.

On the other hand, given her son  Riza Aziz's reported negotiations with the DOJ to reach a settlement,the question arises as to whether the details of the jewellery purchases were provided at least in part  by Riza himself, with Rosmah's blessings. It does seem as if Rosmah and son have decided that it is in their best interests to serve-up Najib to the relevant authorities.
END 

References:


Sunday, May 21, 2017


Adding to the evidence provided by Riza Aziz against Mummy ::Rosmah's lawyer Noorhajran did not deny that Rosmah Mansor is a signatory for the Eric Tan/Jho Low BSI accounts

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Rosmah Mansor - victim of malicious fake news disseminated by irresponsible and unscrupulous quarters.


It has been previously reported on this blog that evidence of Rosmah Mansor's is emerging,out of documents filed in the US, as Riza Aziz fights the DOJ to recover assets acquired with funds 
stolen from 1MDB.


These revelations should be read with this earlier article by this article from a related blog,where Rosmah's lawyer did not deny that she was a signatory for the Eric Tan/Jho Low accounts at the former BSI Bank.
Taken together there is evidence of Rosmah's role at the main and subsidiary levels of the 1MDB theft,directing the flow from the original theft,and then managing the funds parked in various subsidiary accounts.

END



JAN
17




 



by Ganesh Sahathevan





From Malaysia Outlook:

The legal firm of Messrs Noorhajran Mohd Noor has been authorised by Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘client’) to issue this media statement

This is a general statement issued on behalf of the client to the public pertaining to accusations and falsifications of facts against Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

Attention is drawn to a story carried by bloggers and social media postings recently.

The allegations are those to the innuendoes made that “Rosmah was the one who signed the cheques as Eric Tan”.
This media statement is issued, in relation to above, cross-referenced with the statement of facts made by the Attorney-General of Singapore dated Jan 10, 2017 pertaining to the case of Public Prosecutor v Jens Fred Sturzenegger.

Through the statement of facts issued by the AG’s Chamber of Singapore, there was nothing mentioned in the said statement indicative of the allegations made in the social media of the purported role played by Rosmah Mansor.

These allegations are serious, intended to make representations, publishes imputations intending to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation and done with malicious intent to destroy and reduce credibility of Rosmah Mansor as the wife the Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak.

However , that is not what is alleged by the Sarawak Report story on Eric Tan and Rosmah Mansor, which has been quoted and referred to by others.The relevant parts of the Sarawak Report story state:


Who was the actual signatory on the accounts?

That Tan was actually Low confirms the point made by Sarawak Report that someone who has stolen billions of dollars would be highly unlikely to trust the money in the hands of another.  It was for this reason that it was obvious Low would not have put a genuine associate in control of these vast accounts.
However, Low was not the only player behind this sorry saga and there were others who likewise were anxious for their own assurances.
Sarawak Report has heard through very well-placed sources that there was therefore a check on the use of these accounts, which was that the actual signatory was not Jho nor Eric, but someone else.  That signature was needed to authorise payments.
Sarawak Report has been told that this signatory was a woman with whom Jho Low was closely associated in the matter of 1MDB.  So, when insiders informed us over a year ago that Rosmah Mansor had complained over Jho Low’s spending, exclaiming “It’s my money as well”, perhaps this is what they were referring to?


Put simply, Sarawak Report alleges that Rosmah Mansor's signature was required for any disbursements from the account. Rosmah's lawyer Noorhajran Mohd Noor has not denied that and instead denied forgery. A simple ,somewhat child like attempt to deny something that is not, in an attempt to be seen to be denying the allegation.
END 





Who Was The Signatory On The Eric Tan Account?

Who Was The Signatory On The 

Eric Tan Account?

Last week Sarawak Report connected the dots and concluded that the name of ‘Eric Tan’, the beneficial owner of several 1MDB related bank accounts, appeared to be merely an alias for the master-mind behind the thefts, Jho Low.
Now, the Singapore court has confirmed this suspicion, explaining that the Falcon Bank branch boss, Jans Sturzenegger, had confessed that Jho Low told him he used the identity on certain occasions ‘for security purposes‘. Sturzenegger was sentenced to 28 weeks jail and a fine for initially lying to the authorities and failing to report suspicious transactions, making him the first western banker to be convicted in this affair.
Jans Sturzeneggar 'saw Eric Tan's passport'
Jans Sturzeneggar ‘saw Eric Tan’s passport’
However, Sturzenegger is also reported as having claimed that he knew Eric Tan did actually exist, because he had been provided with a passport and a CV.
Anyone who has opened a bank account will know that somewhat more proof of identity than that is generally required to open an account – most particularly the would-be account holder needs to present themselves at the bank. In fact, Low had just impersonated Tan.
But, this matter now presses most on the Swiss side of the investigation. Sturzenegger, after all, was fairly far down the food chain at Falcon Bank and he was plainly carrying out his bosses’ orders. In particular, the CEO Eduardo Leemann, who first introduced ‘Eric Tan’ to Sturzenegger by email in January of 2012. The Singapore manager had not realised that his correspondent erickimloong.tan@gmail.com was Jho Low until he met him the following month.
The same Swiss bosses then pressured Sturzenegger to pass some $1.2 billion through these 1MDB related accounts, even though he was fearful and suspicious it might be money-laundering. He knew he should have reported the enormous transactions.
Acting casual in Dubai, Eduardo Leemann
Acting casual in Dubai, Eduardo Leemann
A former Goldman Sachs senior executive before moving to Falcon, Leemann has in the past seen fit to lecture that there needs to be far less regulation of banks. We suggest that his conduct makes clear that the exact opposite is the case and the Swiss prosecutors should make him and his colleagues a powerful example.
Criminal proceedings against Falcon were announced in Swizerland on 13th October. Two days earlier the regulator FINMA had recommended charges against two of its former senior executives, which Sarawak Report speculated ought include Leemann.
Meanwhile, the enormous half billion dollar backhanders to the over-all Abu Dhabi Aabar boss, Khadem Al Quabaisi, becomes more explicable – he had put his sovereign wealth fund and its private bank at the disposal of Jho Low to launder money from 1MDB.
What the Singapore authorities need to answer more fully is how their own flagship bank, Standard Chartered also ended up running a bogus Eric Tan account on behalf of Jho Low, laundering hundreds of millions through the so-called Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners account.?
Why has Standard Chartered, by contrast, got off relatively lightly with a low key investigation and a modest fine – were they not equally culpable of funnelling hundreds of millions through an account run by a front?

Who was the actual signatory on the accounts?

That Tan was actually Low confirms the point made by Sarawak Report that someone who has stolen billions of dollars would be highly unlikely to trust the money in the hands of another.  It was for this reason that it was obvious Low would not have put a genuine associate in control of these vast accounts.
However, Low was not the only player behind this sorry saga and there were others who likewise were anxious for their own assurances.
Sarawak Report has heard through very well-placed sources that there was therefore a check on the use of these accounts, which was that the actual signatory was not Jho nor Eric, but someone else.  That signature was needed to authorise payments.
Sarawak Report has been told that this signatory was a woman with whom Jho Low was closely associated in the matter of 1MDB.  So, when insiders informed us over a year ago that Rosmah Mansor had complained over Jho Low’s spending, exclaiming “It’s my money as well”, perhaps this is what they were referring to?





Thursday, June 15, 2017

Why judges cannot be trusted with asylum seeker issues-How Indian gangster Dawood Ibrahim's man was allowed to seek asylum in Australia


While Their Honours are likely to have reached their decision by application of legal skills of the highest order, readers are invited to decide the practical implications of their decision. It is assumed that readers are aware of Dawood Ibrahim and his activities, if not see 
Dawood Ibrahim for the Australia Council for the Arts :Appointment of the benevolent Muslim industrialist will be an inspired choice

NSW Police, AFP let loose jihadi financier: Dawood Ibrahim's Australian interests protected to win the Muslim vote?


And now the High Court's view:

McHUGH, GUMMOW, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ.
  • Background
  • On 1 September 1999, the appellant, a citizen of India but not of Australia, entered Australia.

  • The appellant's application for a protection visa. On 30 September 1999, the appellant applied to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") for the grant of a protection visa. He claimed to be a Muslim Tamil who had a well-founded fear of political persecution in India, and hence was a non-citizen to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. He therefore claimed that he fell within s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

  • The appellant advanced the following history. He was an active member of the Indian Union Muslim League and of a committee of the Jihad Movement. He was president of an organisation in his village in Tamil Nadu associated with a movement led by a benevolent Muslim industrialist, Dawood Ibrahimwhom he had met in Bombay. He was arrested with 30 other Muslims on 4 December 1998 and accused of planning to plant bombs. He was severely beaten before being released on 10 December 1998. He decided to flee India to save his life. He was arrested again some time after 11 January 1999 and beaten by the police, who unsuccessfully demanded his passport. He appeared to say that he had also been arrested on 15 April 1999, following the destruction of the local Hindu Temple, detained for two weeks, and tortured.

  • On 15 March 2000, pursuant to s 65 of the Act, an officer of the Department, acting under delegation from the first respondent ("the Minister"), refused the appellant's application for a protection visa. That delegate rejected the appellant's contentions that he had met Dawood Ibrahim in India, that he was involved with the Jihad Movement, and that he was involved with Dawood Ibrahim's movement.

  • The appellant's application for review of the delegate's decision. On 10 April 2000, the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision pursuant tos 412 of the Act.

  • ..............................
  • The discretion favours the grant of relief

  • Some of the considerations that are relevant to the question whether there has been an instance of procedural unfairness may overlap with the factors relevant to providing, or withholding, relief by way of a constitutional writ on discretionary grounds. A residual discretion exists in the provision of such writs and the other relief contemplated by s 39B of the Judiciary Act[57]. It is legitimate in such judicial review proceedings to consider withholding relief if the analysis of all relevant matters indicates that the requirements for relief are not established. The residual discretion permits a court to reconsider the matter globally and to review all of the relevant considerations, taken as a whole[58].

  • When the present case is examined for this purpose no sufficient ground is established to warrant refusal of relief. None of the arguments advanced by the Minister has that effect. No other or different considerations arise personal to the appellant or connected with such questions as delay and the timeliness of his proceedings[59]. On the contrary, the provision of relief upholds the commitment, imputed to the Parliament, in terms of the Act as it then stood, that vulnerable people in the position of the appellant will have their cases determined by the Tribunal fairly and as natural justice requires.

  • Thus, the considerations involved in upholding a law designed to give effect to Australia's international obligations; the protection of the human rights of the appellant; and the maintenance of the due administration of a law enacted by the Parliament all favour the grant of relief. The seventh and final argument of the Minister also fails.
    Orders

  • As I would reject all of the Minister's arguments and otherwise uphold the appellant's complaint of procedural unfairness, I agree in the orders proposed by the joint reasons.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Are former NSA James Clapper and Dennis Richardson working to weaken the US-Australia alliance in favour of China?Recent statements and Rchardson's handling of the Darwin Port sale raise suspicion

by Ganesh Sahathevan
Department of Defence secretary Dennis Richardson said it was an "oversight" to keep the US in the dark over Darwin ...


Department of Defence secretary Dennis Richardson said it was an "oversight" to keep the US in the dark over Darwin Port's lease to China's Landbridge.


A key issue for the future of the Asia-Pacific is how China will employ its growing economic muscle.
Still, I consider China more benignly than I do Russia. China's economy is more inextricably linked with America's, and with Australia's. Despite all the challenges China poses, I believe this fact will serve to moderate China's behaviour.
Australia, in my view, should engage China with both cautiousness and confidence, weighing its strategic and economic interests, never forgetting the importance of its democratic institutions and values shared with the United States.
As Dennis Richardson said, "friends with both, allies with one".

Predictably, local left leaning media picked up on that theme,and counted his statements as one more reason for Australia to move away from the US alliance and into some kind of arrangement with China. That he quotes Dennis Richardson, the recently retired Secretary ,Department of Defence, is interesting given RIchardson's record:


DEPARTMENT of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Dennis Richardson yesterday rejected claims of a conflict of interest with Chinese telco Huawei, sparking some of the most lively exchanges this week in Senate estimates.
Opposition Senate leader Eric Abetz asked Mr Richardson whether his government role clashed with being a director of the Canberra Raiders after the NRL club signed a sponsorship deal in March worth a reported $1.7 million with Huawei.
The Chinese telco was banned earlier this year by the government from tendering for the National Broadband Network over cyber security concerns.
"Would you agree that Huawei is in the vanguard of Chinese economic diplomacy by entering into emerging markets around the world?"asked Senator Abetz.
Mr Richardson quickly rejected the charge.
"I'm not going to get involved in what I may or may not think in respect of Huawei and China's economic diplomacy or anything of that kind," he said.
Senator Abetz pressed on, demanding to know how Mr Richardson balanced his knowledge of Huawei's sponsorship deal with discussion of the company's exclusion from the NBN tender when the matter came before the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
"Senator, you are so far off track, I'm amazed," Mr Richardson replied. "I'm an employee of the commonwealth government, and if a foreign government discusses with me a matter relating to government decision making I'm paid by the taxpayer to explain, defend and prosecute the decisions taken by the Australian government.
"I take that responsibility seriously, and don't do a bad job of it."
Unfazed, Senator Abetz pushed Mr Richardson to reveal any concerns about Huawei's decision to sponsor a football team in the national capital. "Given that they, the players, have had their photographs taken with a new Huawei logo in front of the Australian parliament house, does that give you any indication or flavour that there may have been foreign affairs matters involved in Huawei's sponsorship?"
Mr Richardson sent his reply straight back over the net.
"The Canberra Raiders have been around since 1982 and that's not the first time the Canberra Raiders or the Brumbies (Canberra rugby team) for that matter have been photographed in front of Parliament House," said the DFAT boss.
Mr Richardson challenged Senator Abetz to file a formal complaint if he felt so strongly about a conflict of interest.


Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson has taken the blame for not telling the United States in advance that the Port of Darwin – which is used by US military forces – would be sold to a Chinese company with alleged links to the Chinese military.
Mr Richardson hit back at suggestions the deal was not properly considered by his department, and suggested the US Embassy in Canberra should have been paying more attention to developments around the port's privitisation.
The Australian Financial Review reported that US officials were not consulted, and only heard about the deal last month as they were returning from the annual Australia-US consultations on foreign affairs and defence.
US President Barack Obama then chided Mr Turnbull over the matter in November, asking him to "keep them in the loop" next time, a move independent Senator NIck Xenophon said illustrates the "failures" in the current foreign investment system.
Mr Richardson said it was an oversight not to let the US know the Northern Territory government was leasing the port to Landbridge, but the US Embassy in Australia should have been aware that the port was likely to be privatised.

Readers are reminded that Darwin Port is also used by the Australian and US navies, and that US Marines are stationed there.
END

Reference
Financial Review 


  • Updated Nov 18 2015 at 8:50 AM



  • Chineseogle Plus

    Richard Armitage, a former United States Deputy Secretary of State, said he was "stunned" that Australia blindsided the US on a decision to allow a Chinese company with alleged links to the People's Liberation Army to lease the Port of Darwin.
    "I couldn't believe the Australian defence ministry went along with this," Mr Armitage told The Australian Financial Review in an interview.
    "And I was further stunned to find out that apparently this did not come up in the A-US talks [Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations]."
    Mr Armitage's comments come amid growing controversy about the $506 million deal between the Northern Territory Government and the Chinese Company, Landbridge Corporation to lease the Port of Darwin for 99 years. The furore comes ahead of final bids being lodged for the $9 billion purchase of the NSW electricity grid, which also includes the purchase of sensitive optic fibre cables used by the defence establishment.
    Treasurer Scott Morrison has conceded that processes were not in place for the Darwin port deal to be properly scrutinised by the Foreign Investment Review Board.
    The Department of Defence has publicly said it has no security concerns about the deal, but numerous sources say there is considerable alarm about the deal behind closed doors.
    Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull asking for a full briefing on what processes were undertaken by Canberra to assess the deal and its national security implications.
    The US navy, which recently conducted a freedom of navigation exercise to challenge Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea, has about 1200 marines stationed at Darwin and plans to increase the quota to 2500.
    "If the United States and Australia agreed to have more naval activities, the Darwin port would be the natural jumping off place," Mr Armitage said.
    "Not to mention we've got marines and exercises nearby."
    The tension underlines the growing challenge for Australia in managing relations with its closest security ally, the United States, and rising economic partner, China.
    Mr Armitage, who served as a top diplomat in the George W Bush administration and earlier as a senior defence official for Asia, said he understood the Americans were "very much surprised" to learn of the Darwin port lease to the Chinese and that it hadn't been discussed in advance at a senior inter-government level. Mr Armitage is a Republican, but remains active in Pentagon and think tank circles in Washington. 
    China's massive land reclamation on reefs and rocks in dispute territory in the South China Sea was a key point of discussions, including US navy plans - since executed - to test China's claims within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands.
    The Financial Review reported this week that the Darwin Port issue was not raised by Australia and US officials only heard about the deal upon returning from the annual AUSMIN talks, according to intelligence officials.
    US Defense Department spokesman, Commander Bill Urban, on Monday would not specifically comment on whether Australia had adequately consulted the Pentagon, saying the US and Australia "discuss a wide range of topics".
    "Australia alone determines its criteria for foreign investment projects related to its infrastructure," he said.
    John Lee, a defence expert at the Hudson Institute in Washington and Australian National University, said Landbridge operates in the port logistics and petro-chemicals, two sectors considered by Beijing to be "important" to national interest.
    "This means that there is not just intimate government supervision of all major Chinese companies in these sectors, but also collaboration if and when Beijing sees it in the national interest to do so," Dr Lee said. 
    In the US, Dubai Ports World in 2006 was forced to sell American ports it had acquired just months earlier, after a political backlash over a lack of scrutiny of the potential security risks associated with the Arab-owned company.
    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-department group led by Treasury and including intelligence agencies, has the power to review and block foreign investment, including on national security grounds.
    The Bush administration in 2008 blocked China's Huawei Technologies to purchase a stake in 3Com, a US maker of internet router and networking equipment. 
    Huawei is banned from bidding for US government contracts because of concerns over espionage and was blocked in Australia for competing for National Broadband Network work, a decision that then communications minister Malcolm Turnbull expressed reservations about.



    Monday, June 5, 2017

    Malaysian lawyer Shafee Abdullah may have acquired properties in Australia with money stolen from 1MDB-Funds sent by Najib via ANZ/AMBank

    by Ganesh Sahathevan


    Shafee, Scivetti and another joint foreign client on drugs charges
    Shafee Abdullah, Tania Scivetti( his legal 
    The investigate news site Sarawak Report has published details of payments totalling RM 9.5 Million (AUD 3 Million) to a Malaysian lawyer ,Shafee Abdullah, financed by monies stolen from the sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. The payments were made out of PM Najib Razak's private accounts at AMBank, which is effectively managed by ANZ of Australia.

    Shafee is understood to have made investments in Perth ,Australia. His Australian links, both commercial and private, need to be investigated with regards the 1MDB matter, which Australian authorities are still trying hard to ignore.

    END



    Najib Paid Anwar's Prosecutor RM9.5 Million From 1MDB Slush Fund WHY? EXCLUSIVE REPORT

    Najib Paid Anwar's Prosecutor RM9.5 Million From 1MDB Slush Fund WHY? EXCLUSIVE REPORT

    According to the documents obtained by Sarawak Report, the controversial lawyer Muhammed Shafee Abdullah was one of the biggest individual recipients of money from Najib’s 1MDB slush fund accounts.
    Shaffee, who is known to be an extremely close confidante of Najib and who was controversially appointed as the public prosecutor during the appeal against the acquittal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges in 2014, received two payments.
    Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 17.17.47 copy Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 17.15.14 copy
    11th September 2013 Najib paid him RM4,300,000 from his AmBank account no 2112022011906 and again on 17th February 2014 he received RM5,200,000 from the same account.  This account has been identified as having been funded by money stolen by the Prime Minister from the 1MDB subsidiary SRC, which had borrowed some RM4 billion from the civil service pension fund KWAP.
    AG Apandi inadvertently confirmed that finding by waving MACC investigation papers showing the money trail into Account no 2112022011906 in January 2016, at the very press conference during which he announced that no wrong-doings had been committed and he was closing down investigations into 1MDB.
    Acc no 2112022011906 as highlighted in the MACC money trail held up by AG Apandi
    Acc no 2112022011906 as highlighted in the MACC money trail held up by AG Apandi
    Later Apandi acknowledged the money had come from SRC, but chose to exonerate the Prime Minister because Najib had explained he hadn’t realised that this was where the millions had appeared from in his accounts.  No one has ever asked Najib (or recipients such as Shafee) for this public pension money to be returned.

    What were the payments for?

    Anwar Ibrahim - jailed after Shafee lead a bizarre appeal against his earlier acquittal
    Anwar Ibrahim – jailed after Shafee lead a bizarre appeal against his earlier acquittal
    These payments came at extremely sensitive moments relating to Shafee and Najib and provoke immediate questions about why the Prime Minister was paying this particular lawyer such very large sums of illegitimate money?
    Quite apart from the illegality of the source there are also potential glaring conflicts of interest.
    The RM5,200,000 received in February 2014 came just a fortnight before the Appeal Court overturned an earlier acquittal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on charges of alleged sodomy. Shafee Abdullah, a private lawyer, had been controversially appointed to a one-off role as the public prosecutor for this extraordinary appeal.
    In the first place, for the prosecution to appeal an acquittal in a criminal case breaches all normal court practice and it should never have happened.  However, the involvement of Shafee in this untoward and plainly politically-motivated move against Najib’s most dangerous political opponent represented even further abuses of judicial process.
    As Anwar’s defence team pointed out, to place someone from outside of the normal prosecution service into this high profile role at this point in the case is against established procedure. It also represented a clear conflict of interest, since Shafee himself is a known confidant of Najib.
    And the conflict was worse than that, Anwar’s lawyers pointed out, because Shafee was himself a material witness, pivotal to the case for the defence, which was that Anwar was the victim of a conspiracy.

    Why Shafee was considered a material witness

    Two days before the alleged victim of Anwar, Mohd Saiful, pressed charges, the student was identified as having visited the home of Najib himself to discuss the entire matter.
    Najib at first denied this fact. However, when photographs were produced he admitted meeting the student, but only to discuss his ‘career plans’.  Only after the alleged victim then broke under questioning and confessed he had discussed his allegations against Anwar with Najib did the Prime Minister admit that the discussion had taken place.
    Shafee Abdullah has been proven to have been at Najib’s house at the same time.  However, the lawyer claims he was not part of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the student – a meeting where legal advice might be considered an obvious priority. Shafee said he was doing something else, somewhere else in the house. Anwar’s legal team contended that to the contrary he was advising the prime minister on handling the student, who went ahead to denounce Anwar two days later (after a further secret meeting with the Deputy Head of Police).
    So, why was Najib paying Shafee such a huge sum of money in February 2014, at a time that this lawyer was supposedly contracted into a public role as a special prosecutor in by far the most high profile legal case of the period – a case in which Najib had a very strong interest in the outcome and in which Shafee himself was a material witness?
    The Australian barrister Mark Trowell, who acted as an observer at the trial and then wrote a book about the case, has described the entire prosecution as a gross miscarriage of justice full of “glaring anomalies”. Shafee was at the centre of it, so why was Najib paying him over RM5.2 million?
    March 7th 2014 a three man Appeal Court panel found Anwar guilty, overturning the judgement of the High Court the previous year in an astounding perversion of justice (normally an acquittal can never be appealed or reversed except in exceptional cases and through a complete re-trial).

    Najib’s legal fixer

    Anwar naturally appealed the shocking and irregular overturn by the Appeal Court of his earlier acquittal and once again Shafee was used to prosecute the case for the government through the Federal Court.  In a short hearing in early 2015 those Federal judges upheld the Appeal Court judgement, causing no surprise in Malaysia.
    What did surprise even Shafee’s colleagues was what this legal eagle did next.  He embarked on a road show justifying the conduct of the shameful trial process and continuing to villify Anwar, now in jail. Shafee even went so far as to regail his listeners with details of intimate allegations that had specifically been barred from the court itself, thereby breaking the rules again in the poorest of taste.
    Shafee then sued lawyers who censured this conduct through the Bar Council for defamation, but lost his case.
    Such enthusiastic support for Najib, which so plainly goes beyond the objectivity of a supposedly neutral observer betrays what has in fact been a long association between the two men.
    Texts which were released on line many years ago between the two men and which have never been denied show that Shafee offered his services to the beleaguered then Deputy PM in the aftermath of the discovery of his translator Altantuya’s body and the arrest of Najib’s bodyguards and his advisor and proxy Razak Baginda for her murder.
    Shafee closely represented Najib as they worked to get Baginda off the hook and put all the blame for the crime on the two bodyguards, excluding all discussion of motive from the case.  So, no wonder his bias against Anwar was raised by his lawyers, since Shafee is widely regarded as Najib’s prime legal fixer in opposition circles.
    The court dismissed such concerns.  However, the glaring question as to why Najib paid Shafee nearly RM10 million in the few months and weeks before that verdict remains.