On March 19th, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the defense submission by businessman Low Thiam Hoe that include former Deputy Prime Minister cum Minister of Finance, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan in the submission to a lawsuit by Hong Leong Finance.
Read ABITW here and here.
Hong Leong Finance had sued several parties; Low, Mekuritek Sdn Bhd and Arus Murni Sdn Bhd for non payment of loans amounting RM445 million for a failed acquisition of Kewangan Bersatu Berhad from Koperasi Usaha Bersatu Berhad (KUBB) in 1998.
The lawsuit was filed by Hong Leong Finance Bhd (HLFB) in 1997 but stangely HLFB had stalled proceeding since 2005. It was only reactivated recently.
Has Quek Leng Chan and Hong Leong Group given up on Anwar Ibrahim?
The proposed amendment was rejected by Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail on the ground that it had come too late in the course of the trial.
Raja Petra's made a revelation today of the court submission by the defense. It revealed Anwar and Quek as having the ultimate interest in Arus Murni.
Malaysia Today here disclosed this morning samples of the defense submission by Low.
The rejected item was item 4 in Page 3 of the defense submission that spelt out Anwar and Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan as the having the ultimate interest in Arus Murni. See the highlighted part taken from Malaysia Today below:
In the defense submission made under oath, Hamzah Harun and Mohd Faiz Abdullah was stated as "principals at all time acting for" or in normal parlance, proxy to Anwar and Quek in Arus Murni for the exercise to takeover KBB from UMNO-initiated cooperative, KUBB.
This revelation will be another line of blockbuster of Anwar, who on August 19, 2008 here challenged his detractors to name his cronies.
That is not difficult. Many had done so.
In his days as Minister of Finance, his cronies are publicly known. So does this revelation which merely confirmed what the bankers and market already know.
This leaked court document was submitted as a trial exhibit as proof for the defense. The material is merely rejected on procedural or technical basis and not due to it's truthfulness.
It will be hard press on Anwar to deny to the public. In fact, it would have been better off for him that the evidence is argued and disputed in the trial.
The defense could probably appeal this rejection.
Should the defense appeal and was accepted, this piece of information will be accepted as proof, strong or weak, unless disputed by Anwar and Quek Leng Chan.
How will Anwar answer to the public?
He can't say the court has decided to reject it. To turn the table on his usual psywar tactic of public perception, he can't deny based on merely technical reason.
The judge and jury in the court of public opinion need a better answer than that.
The public will also await what Faiz and Hamzah have to say on this. If Faiz and Hamzah are truly proxies, it is unlikely they are willing to take the fall to pay for Anwar's and Quek's loans.
The amount of RM224.5 million is no chicken feed to anybody.
If they are not proxies, they will still have to fend off HLFB from bankrupting them. Do they have something else to reveal to save their own skin or Anwar and Quek will pay for it?
In the court of public opinion, it is not what you say that matters sometime, but how you say it. Thus, how will Anwar, Hamzah, Faiz and Quek reply?
Quek also has to answer to save his banking business as it is as much at stake.
After much difficulty for the Quek family, both in Malaysia and Singapore, to get a banking license, what will be the implication to them for breaching a cardinal sin in banking i.e. lending to one own self?
Ask Tan Sri Teh Hiong Piow of Public Bank of the treatment he gets from the late Bank Negara Malaysia Governor, Tun Ismail Ali. If the allegation could stick, Teh could have gone to jail and get his banking license suspended.
As for Hamzah and Faiz, isn't it expensive to be proxies?
Saifuddin Abdullah and the Christian prayer
2 hours ago