KUALA LUMPUR, June 17 — The US$681 million (or RM2.08 billion) that then-prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak received in his private bank account in 2013 was not “chicken feed” or a small amount, but he did not behave normally like how a reasonable man would, the High Court said.

In his 809-page judgment released yesterday, 1MDB trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah said evidence such as bank records and the money trail showed that the US$681 million was actually misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), also rejecting Najib’s claim that it was an Arab donation.

“This was not chicken feed. The sums remitted were staggering in its enormity,” the judge said of the US$681 million which passed through multiple bank accounts and Tanore Finance Corp’s account before entering Najib’s AmIslamic bank account.

But even after taking into account Najib’s position as the prime minister, his reaction did not match how a reasonable man would behave in similar circumstances, the judge said.

The judge pointed out that Najib did not verify if the money he received was actually donations from Saudi Arabia.

The judge noted that Najib himself told the court that he never checked how Tanore had gotten his bank account details to send him the US$681 million.

The judge noted Najib had said “what was important to him and all that mattered was that he did in fact receive the monies”.

Here’s Malay Mail’s quick summary of why Najib was found guilty of all 25 charges of power abuse and money laundering in his RM2.2 billion 1MDB trial, based on the 809-page judgment:

Najib’s two main defences in the 1MDB trial

  • He claimed he genuinely believed the money sent into his bank account was donations from Saudi Arabia, and tried to use four Arab donation letters to support his claim.
  • He claimed he was misled or duped by his subordinates who worked together with Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) and others to siphon money out from 1MDB.

But Najib failed to convince the court that his two claims are believable or true, and this resulted in his conviction.

A) Highlights of reasons why Najib failed in his Arab donation defence:

1. Court said Najib changed his story over time:

First, he said the money was from Saudi’s then ruler King Abdullah as a promised donation, but later said the funds came from King Abdullah’s royal family (as he believed the King couldn’t be expected to personally send the money).

But the judge said Najib didn’t verify if the money was actually from King Abdullah.

2. Court concluded the four Arab donation letters are fake:

The four letters, which purportedly promised to give Najib gifts worth billions of ringgit, were signed off by a “Saud Abdulaziz AL-Saud” (first letter), “HRH Prince Saud Abdulaziz Al-Saud” (second and fourth letter), and by “Saud Abdulaziz Al Saud” (third letter).

Judge ruled that the four letters are “forgeries”, based on all the court evidence.

This includes Najib admitting he never met, called or corresponded with the alleged donors, and also Najib being unable to show any single direct communication with any Saudi donor.

The judge said Najib also acknowledged he never verified the donors’ existence or if the four letters were authentic.

3. Other issues with the four Arab donation letters:

  • The original copies of the four letters have not been shown to the court.
  • No witnesses or officials from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have confirmed that these letters were authentic.
  • For example, one of the letters said it was from “Saud Abdul Aziz Al-Saud Private Office” instead of from King Abdullah or King Abdullah’s office.
  • The letter was addressed to Najib’s personal home address, instead of the PM’s official address. This should have caused Najib to be suspicious, the judge said.
  • Najib never tried to clarify who Saud is, and did not confirm if Saud did in fact provide money on behalf of King Abdullah.

4. Najib was ‘wilfully blind’ about where US$681 million came from:

Judge said Najib did not take steps to verify the origin of the money sent by Tanore or Tanore’s identity, “but now explains somewhat belatedly that Tanore was a proxy of the late King Abdullah”.

Given the enormous scale and suspicious nature of the transactions, Najib’s failure to check meant that he was “deliberately shutting his eyes to the obvious” about the source of funds.

The judge said Najib’s wilful blindness meant he had every “reason to believe” that the money was proceeds from an illegal activity, and leads to the irresistible inference that he knew the funds were from a 1MDB subsidiary’s US$3 billion bond.

5. Judge finds Najib’s return of US$620 million out of US$681 million was money-laundering, not transparency

Najib said he sent US$620 million back to Tanore’s account as he did not need a huge sum in his accounts after the 13th general elections, also claiming he believed that Tanore was connected to King Abdullah.

But Najib said he did not inform Tanore, Saud or King Abdullah of his intention to return the money, as he believed it would be apparent through the banking system.

The judge said this was not transparency, but is instead a method for Najib to distance himself from the money and one of the ways that money laundering is done.

The judge said Najib later received more money from Tanore as donations, after claiming to have returned the US$620 million.

If the money Najib returned was “truly a bona fide donation”, there would be no need for more “donations” through companies controlled by Jho Low’s associate Eric Tan Kim Loong, the judge said.

Tan is Tanore’s owner.

The judge concluded that the “irresistible inference” is that the return of the US$620 million “was clearly staged to disguise” the illegal origins of the money, while ensuring that Najib continued to benefit from them.

Among other things, the judge said the 1MDB charges against Najib are not politically motivated, as there is “glaring evidence” of siphoned money from 1MDB reaching his account and as the 1MDB case also made it to the US courts.

Why political donation claim was rejected

Najib claimed he had received the money as a “political donation” to help him return as PM in the 13th general election, but judge dismissed this defence as untrue for reasons such as:

  • Money went into Najib’s personal account; alleged donation letter was addressed to him and not official address or political party’s address.
  • Malaysian government and political parties did not issue any receipts or acknowledgment to donor.
  • No confirmation from the purported donor that any political donation was given to Najib.
  • Najib’s political party Umno was the largest party and not a “fly-by-night rookie” party, so it would be unbelievable that it would not have any accounting records if it was supposed to be the beneficiary of these funds.

B) Why judge said Najib wasn’t misled or fooled by Jho Low and others

Judge said Najib was not a “country bumpkin”, and he is not an “ignoramus who was hopelessly unaware of the misdeeds going on around him”.

Najib’s lawyers tried to portray him as too immersed and engaged in running Malaysia as the prime minister to keep an eye on 1MDB, and having placed blind trust in 1MDB’s management and board of directors.

But the judge rejected this idea, as that would require the court to believe that Najib is a “laughing stock” and the “only one of his kind among world leaders” as someone who is capable of being fooled by his subordinates and led by Low (who has no apparent position in 1MDB).

Instead, all the evidence in court leads to the conclusion that Low was Najib’s proxy, conduit, intermediary, and facilitator in 1MDB affairs, the judge said.

Other points on Najib and Jho Low

Among other things, the judge said Najib’s and Low’s relationship, through evidence such as their vacation photos, were too consistent to be just a mere coincidence.

The judge said it would be “pure fantasy” to believe Najib’s officers would conspire together with Low against him as the PM on 1MDB matters.

The judge also highlighted that Najib did not lodge any police reports against Low for issuing instructions on 1MDB on Najib’s behalf.

This fact “speaks loud and clear that Jho Low was not operating independently or in cahoots with” the 1MDB management to “defraud and hoodwink” Najib, who was the most powerful man in Malaysia then, the judge said.

The judge said Low was very involved in 1MDB affairs with Najib’s blessings, and also said Najib had personal knowledge, control and vested interest in 1MDB affairs.

Recommended reading: