i thought

This statement is from AmBank manager at court last month right? Now what. Who to believe right now?

It was "Told" - Show evidence please lah

I can transfer RM1 to you and put description as Prince Lala gift

Then write a letter to you and said donate to u from Prince Lala

if money laundering can bypass by using 'donation', everyone no need pay tax lu

This post has been edited by ConstantLove: May 14 2019, 04:46 PM

This Uma person also susah to do lah...
Do also wrong, don't do then tong simen...sigh

So you are saying she lied in the court? That's really bold.

Yeah PH need to fix that law. Hopefully in the next parliament sitting.

-You approve my loan
-I transfer to investment company abroad
-Investment company transfer to Saudi prince company( my friend/my gang) shhh they have lousy anti corruption law
-Saudi company transfer out money to prince
-prince transfer money to me and he got a slice of the cake too.
-I told bank its a present /donation for my birthday
-win win( prince happy , I happy)

This post has been edited by Clement1001: May 14 2019, 04:51 PM

You think this is true? Why didn't they mention this in the court last month?

I think there is no reason to doubt the account of this Prince Turkey exist.

The question is...Who is this Prince Turkey? Is he Jho Low in an Arab suit? Not hard to make fake accounts yo.

Update: My mistake, Prince Al Turki already arrested or corruption charges in Saudi. Need to do skype with him in jail i guess. LOL.

This post has been edited by skyforcerld: May 14 2019, 05:01 PM

Self write a letter


Then slef praise self that there is inrefutable prove that the money is donation because the letter is sacred wiriting of sort


Damn lawyer these days

I don't think she's lying. She's merely saying what is stated in the instruction. It is not her duty to verify the source of the money. Her duty is to follow the account holder instruction and also because the amount is huge highlight to BNM.

This post has been edited by oucheev: May 14 2019, 04:58 PM

No need letter I think. Just trace back the ambank account money transfer. Surely the bank manager can do this easily.

Nope, this is not the rm2.6 B that Najib took from 1MDB

Here is the 2.6B

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/page/f...877166/download

IV. THE TANORE PHASE: MORE THAN $1.26 BILLION IS
MISAPPROPRIATED FROM 1MDB

229. Funds transferred to the Tanore Account were distributed for the benefit of
at least one public official associated with 1MDB. More particularly, very shortly after
the bond offering closed, between approximately March 21, 2013, and March 25, 2013,
$681,000,000 was transferred from the Tanore Account to an account belonging to
MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1

Are you sure it's not her job to verify that?

Wait, I am confused. Are we talking about the 2.6 bill or 1.9 bill?

It is written at SPRM website. Gov official cannot accept gift > RM500.

Habis cerita.

And my tenant donate money to me every month while i let him stay for free.

Winrar!

This post has been edited by skyforcerld: May 14 2019, 05:03 PM

Erm, I don't think there are enough details here.

What is it now? She knows for certain cos the bank did a check to see if it really was from Prince Faisal?

Or it was merely from Najib's letter of instruction that she knows its from a Prince?

Which is it?

Which cacat reporter dunno how to write until something like this is not clear?

I think there's a court case that say that Najib does not count as Gov official. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aiya, Najib cakap the money is from Faisal, then the bank mai recorded the money as from Faisal lo. I don't think the bank so canggih can trace the source of the money from its original source. It takes an entire supply chain to cooperate and be transparent. When it comes to international remittances, it is impossible to have transparency.

So, this report is also misleading. The source as donation from Faisal comes from Najib's own reason given to the bank, not the Bank's own investigation. Based on my understanding of banking operations la.

This post has been edited by ZeaXG: May 14 2019, 05:08 PM

All she need to verify is the accounts are valid. She does not need to verify the whether the person under the account is really owned by the so called prince as there's no way for she can verify especially it is a foreign accounts. Her duty is notify his superior and they will lodge a report for BNM to investigate.

Your understanding of banking operations? Ok...

Lol. Plotek! Plotek!

MO1 not Gov official... yeah rite....and i bet that was the kangaroo court during Najib's time.



This post has been edited by skyforcerld: May 14 2019, 05:21 PM

Well, If it kangaroo then PH gov need to challenge that court case. Why didn't they?

Jibbie songlap so much money why still got people defending him

Kan Bijan already in court now? Plotek bodo? Lol.

There are 2 types:
1. Bodoh
2. Macais

mac60931

Pick one.

You are talking about SRC case. I'm talking about other case.

Edit: This case

Najib as PM is not a public officer, High Court rules

This post has been edited by mac60931: May 14 2019, 05:35 PM

i am here for popcorn

So you are saying High court is "Macais"? Be careful, you can be charge under Court contempt.

so meaning anyone can transfer a huge some of money to another person by just giving a letter saying it's a donation?

you defending jibbie?

Actually, why M'sian government have not requested US gomen to reveal who is MO1?

This is standard questioning to verify fact base on bank record. Since bank record said its from prince so witness need to confirm its as per fact. Later they will start to scrutinize the money trail and the existence of this prince and saudi ministry.

Thanos already said Saudi didnt give. You think he dare make the statement without proof one?

/k lawyers/detectives are at it again!

Huh? I was defending the High Court integrity.

I don't think it's that simple. BNM need to be notified about this of course.

Actually I was hopping Tun will comes to court to testify about this.

Apparently in /k. You can't deny PH in any way possible. Even if you support opposition or not.

I'm not saying he/she is but what if he/she do defend jibbie? You angry? You feel like your soul was stolen?

Yeah, this comes as a shock to me. They don't have to be so aggressive. I just told them what I was thinking. Am I not allowed to do that?

This post has been edited by mac60931: May 14 2019, 05:59 PM

You forgot that they can be both ?

So you are saying the High Court can be both? Got it. Time to report to MCMC.

and my 'friend' donate money to me every month while i let him use my car for free

and my 'friend' donate money to me every month while i supply him free goods




every business use 'donate', then no need pay tax lo?

Spot on and she has no reason either otherwise it wouldn't match the money trail either.

That "donation" from your friend is taxable.

Incorrect.

Do-net sound like Ko-net!

Bosslu must be fooling us!

thanks. i hope jib kor paid tax

When monies are wired from overseas there a code with necessary details even the senders name. If there's any supporting documents it should be at he transmitting bank as well. Any letters produced locally to substantiate the reason holds no water.

So you can safely omit the second one.

Lol
You mentioned the high court, I did not.
Hello MCMC.

darthboyzzee datang lagi dengan tered backfired pastu menyorok

Just lawyers twisting the facts as usual.

There are corrupt banks all over the world (the few that were shutdown due to 1MDB is simple enough proof). Anyone could have wired the cash, and used a fake name or position to make it look legitimate with the proper leverage.

The question is, why did not BNM flag the transaction, and was there already prior instructions given to BNM for the transaction to find its way to AmBank without proper paperwork?

The bank officer is answering questions based on facts she is aware of. The money 'originated' from someone named Price Faisal, as per the transfer order. She can't answer more then the actual facts that she is aware of.

This is SRC case, 1MDB belum datang lagi.

I think BNM took action against Ambank and fined Ambank according to the powers of BNM. However, BNM does not have the power to go after the individual in the accounts as it is beyond their jurisdiction. However, the AG has the power to go after the individual but he together with BNM governor were forced to go for early retirement.

No matter what how legitimate it may be made to look, only with a proper detailed investigation into this worldwide money trail will it be able to expose everything for all to see.

Those were very frightening times indeed, just a small misstep and that would costs one's life.

It is argued that gov administrator do not follow the rules applied to gov servants.

I think this has been proven in the court too, if I am not mistaken.

mac60931 writes for najip.

I would think it is rubbish to say a prime minister is not a Govt official.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: May 14 2019, 07:55 PM

Souls don't exist but yeah I'd be angry. He stole so much money from us.

From what i know, gov administrator is not employed by the gov. The PM is chosen by parliament n the ministers in chosen by PM. So, thats why they cant be considered as gov officials. Gov officials represent the gov, gov administrator represent the country.

Thats the argument la.

Lol jibby is innocent.. I told u guys 1000 times oredi

Prime Minister represents the Govt lah, how can he not be a Govt official? That is really stupid imo.

If he is gov official n represent the gov, means gov can fire him. Can gov fire him?

Can he say that he don't represent the Govt?

He represent the country. Country =/= gov.

a PM is the head of Govt, how can he not represent Govt?

The most senior position among gov servant is ksn. Not PM. PM is in a different part of the gov. Just like parliament, juridical. As so, a gov servant cant go beyond ksn n be a pm. Just like a pm cant be a judge.

U must view them as seperate. And bcoz of that, MP in parliament have different rules, judge have their own seperate rules and finally PM and his cabinet also have their own rules to follow.

What? You are saying the HIGH COURT decisions is rubbish? Are you sure you wanna say that? That is amount to court contempt in case you didn't know.

The correct word is impeach.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: May 14 2019, 08:26 PM

Going around intimidating people is just brilliant. Hopefully you take action instead of settling here in /k

absolutely agree. It really takes a civil servant to lay down all the constitutional facts to the layman.

I blame this on the education: there is no subject called civil studies. The best one was Pengajian Am, but that subject faces two problem: 1. it's not in SPM, where majority of school leavers end up getting it as their highest education within malaysia (they go out to foreign colleges later), 2. There's no pengajian am in matrikulasi, which means more and more of the population will miss having their civil education there.

MOE should really consider moving pengajian am to SPM level in order to educate the public

Regardless, a PM has to represent the Govt, if he doesn't, it is meaningless to say He represents the country. Question is represent the country as what?

Still points back to the Govt, since he's the head of Govt. That is my argument.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: May 14 2019, 08:35 PM

actually, we have learnt the basic in school. enough to understand the separation of power between executive, judicial and legislative as well as the little details in them.

This post has been edited by Invince_Z: May 15 2019, 07:55 AM

KSN is head of gov.
PM represent the YDPA in gov.

This is not about denying PH. This has nothing to do with PH. I deny PH all the time like the recent bodoh tint move.

This matter is simply Najib songlap.

But macai and/or bodoh tries very hard to blame it on PH for Najib's crime.

He Kantoi liao, no matter how his lawyer spin. 1mdb advisor / board of director consider as officer of public body or not?

Act 694

Offence of accepting gratification
16. Any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with
any other person—
(a) corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to receive for
himself or for any other person; or
(b) corruptly gives, promises or offers to any person whether
for the benefit of that person or of another person,
any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise
on account of—
(A) any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect
of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely
to take place; or
(B) any officer of a public body doing or forbearing to do
anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual
or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public
body is concerned,


Offence of using office or position for gratification
23. (1) Any officer of a public body who uses his office or
position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative
or associate, commits an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an officer of a public
body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his
office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his
relative or associate, when he makes any decision, or takes any
action, in relation to any matter in which such officer, or any
relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or
indirectly.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that, for the
purposes of subsection (1), any member of the administration of a
State shall be deemed to use his office or position for gratification
when he acts contrary to subsection 2(8) of the Eighth Schedule
to the Federal Constitution or the equivalent provision in the
Constitution or Laws of the Constitution of that State.
(4) This section shall not apply to an officer who holds office
in a public body as a representative of another public body which
has the control or partial control over the first-mentioned public
body in respect of any matter or thing done in his capacity as
such representative for the interest or advantage of that other
public body.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: May 15 2019, 09:25 AM

I know how you feel, but in technical they're not wrong.
I was just as shocked as you upon hearing that the PM isn't a government servant.

Second Appeals Court panel rules PM is not a public officer

To all his macai who had once protected him

Arul kanda, mazlan etc

Making of statement which is false or intended to mislead, etc.,
to an officer of the Commission or the Public Prosecutor
27. (1) Where any person makes or causes any other person to
make to an officer of the Commission or to the Public Prosecutor,
in the course of such officer or Public Prosecutor exercising any
power conferred by this Act, any statement which to the knowledge
of the person making the statement, or causing the statement to
be made—
(a) is false, or intended to mislead; or
(b) is not consistent with any other statement previously made
by such person to any other person having authority or
power under any law, or otherwise, to receive, or require
to be made, such other statement regardless whether or
not the person making the statement is under any legal
or other obligation to tell the truth,
he commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine
not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten years or to both.
(2) Where any person, who has made a statement to an officer
of the Commission or to the Public Prosecutor, in the course of
such officer or Public Prosecutor exercising any power conferred
by this Act, subsequently thereto makes any other statement to any
person having authority or power under any law, or otherwise, to
receive, or require to be made, such other statement, regardless
whether or not the person making the statement is under a legal
or other obligation to tell the truth, he commits an offence, if
such other statement is inconsistent with any statement previously
made to an officer of the Commission or the Public Prosecutor and
shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred
thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years or to both.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that for the
purposes of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (2), any statement
made in the course of any legal proceedings before any court,
whether civil or criminal, or any statement made by any person in the course of any disciplinary proceedings, whether such legal
proceedings or disciplinary proceedings are against the person
making the statement or against any other person, shall be deemed
to be a statement made to a person having authority or power
under law to receive the statement so made.

GG

This post has been edited by wanted111who: May 15 2019, 09:35 AM

parti DAPx PKRx dah lama buat sampai skrg tak delcare dari mana datang

DOJ until today cannot name who is MO1? or they did? not sure

You forgotten your Ex Minister saying meh... "It is not theft, as long as you are not caught"

Eat your own WORDs BN macai

I know they're playing a technical game.

But honestly..try imagine a normal citizen approaching the prime minister asking for help and he tells that poor rakyat, I don't represent the Govt.


It just doesn't make any sense if we go with their technical argument.

he is right u know
u see white hair mahathir daim ...all now very very suci murni
syukur la past 30 years undi BN

yup, you're right.
Its just funny that in the court, you can really get away just by arguing the semantics, and that is exactly what najib's team is doing.

n also need to see the donuts donor...

Saya sudah bertemu wakil keluarga penderma RM2.6 b
22 Aug 2015
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/3688313

does it matter? Rahman dahlan already confirm MO1 is Najib

must be official from DOJ lah

The lawyers are not stupid. They did their homework and any false statement came out from witness will be turned against the opposition. At least the witness will be disqualified. So don't need to act smarter than professional. Everything has black and white and it is traceable. Even someone use burlap bag to bring cash to bank, sure the bank has their ID record and also CCTV record.

If money laundry is so simple, no one need to open up RM2 company to wash the money. Just bank in cash will do.

I don't really know, y don't u go find out?

it doesn't matter to me what is the name
Does it matter to u? If change the name to najib means he dint steal? Or DOJ make a mistake with mo1?

it should matter la

or DOJ SOP is like that then GG lor

there's many more billions,.. this just a tip of iceberg,..

Y GG??

If DOJ come out fake accusation then baru GG... Jho Low cincai employ a lawyer can fck the US DoJ proper and good...
But as said before, Msians have been waiting 3 years n counting for JLo and gang to reclaim his "assets".. habuk pun takda