One weekend event and a late night tip-off.
One lesson from the two to young wannabees eager to be proxies to some corporate players or politicians, be careful of easy money.
Thinking that it is one way to earn that easy quick money to lead a life of luxury or that capital needed to fund one's pursuit, wannabees - young and old - get sucked into traps that get dragged into long court battle or financial ruins.
Remind ourselves, if it is quick money, why would those corporate players and politicians share with you? Have that devil advocate within ourselves to ask and doubt our easily made up decisions.
Over the weekend, we met up with someone close to Dato Eskay, the leading Dato of the triumvirate Dato T, that exposed the sex tapes of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
As far as we are concerned, the video is Anwar's. It is just too convincing. Anwar's responses and refusals to response substantiate it further.
The attempt to spin by Haji Hadi to say video is not acceptable witness under syaria law because it is inanimate objects, seal it up. Off course it is not a witness but evidence.
With Eskay confessing and describing in person, it is sufficient for us.
After that weekend night, now we know why Anwar was walking front and back before the main actor calls, "Action!"
Our purpose to hear out this guy was for something else. It was on something the opposition had used to slander back against Eskay.
We wanted to know why is a guy who does not morally judge his friends and he befriends everyone, irrespective on which side of the political divide, finally had a calling to expose Anwar wrongdoings.
Also, we were aware of a court case between Eskay and Dato Yahya Jalil, the controversial businessman who was recently entangled in a series of pay off to couple of politicians by a blog called The Whistleblower.
Yahya or Pakya to many Johoreans, is entangled in many financial commitments with many groups, including a member of the royal family which he cannot deliver. He may have stretched himself thin.
Read here first this Malaysian Insider's slanted report to twist it into a tale of crooks and cronies, which in actual fact are part and parcel of the lobbying process in any public work project procurement any where in the world:
Businessman’s tale of how he won ‘crooked bridge’ dealNaturally Yahya has to deny and battle it out in court.
By Yow Hong Chieh
KUALA LUMPUR, March 10 — A businessman offered a glimpse into how government contracts are secured when he told the High Court today his access to senior officials and influential ministers secured him the rights to the Malaysia-Singapore International Gateway bridge project, better known as the “crooked bridge”.
“It was all based on my effort,” Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah told the court today.
Shazryl Eskay said that, in addition to approaching the late Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayub for help, he had also helped second defendant, Datuk Yahya A. Jalil, gain access to then-deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
But Shazryl Eskay was quick to stress that he did not have any power over either Megat Junid or Anwar, and insisted that he got the contract through the merits of the project and the companies involved.
“I did not influence them, but convinced them,” Shazryl Eskay said.
He had filed a lawsuit in January 2002, claiming breach of contract by Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd and Yahya for failing to pay him RM20 million after he procured the project for them.
In his statement of claim, Shazryl Eskay said Yahya, executive director and major shareholder of Merong Mahawangsa, had enlisted his help to procure the project from the government and to secure RM640 million in foreign funds for the project.
He claimed the second defendant had sought his help for his “discretion and good relations” with the government.
Shazryl Eskay said the second defendant suggested RM20 million in remunerations for his services, which has not been paid.
The “crooked bridge” project was terminated by the Abdullah administration in 2006.
Shazryl Eskay is seeking a RM20 million payment from the defendants as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Yahya, however, in his defence statement denied using the plaintiff’s close ties with the government and Megat Junid’s family as it was “against public policy, wild and illegal”.
The court was also told today that Shazryl Eskay and Yahya had started talks to settle the matter out of court to avoid “embarrassing some personalities involved”.
Justice VT Singham, however, ordered the trial to continue until such a settlement is reached.
He also rejected a request by Yahya’s lawyer to adjourn the matter until the latter returns from a business trip to Jeddah with former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The trial continues tomorrow at 8.30am.
What happened was Eskay and Yahya were partners in a company bidding for the "jambatan bengkok".
Then Yahya brought in a member of the royal family as shareholders and turned to Eskay to buy up his shares. He may have told Eskay that it ie better than him having to deal with the royal family.
It turns out that Eskay's shares in the company may not be just of Eskay's but also of Anwar's. Yahya had paid Eskay in installments until he stopped few years ago.
According to the source, Eskay has a common lawyer with Anwar as in Dato Phabakaran. Eskay had asked Phabakaran to ask Anwar but was told that the money was paid long time ago to Anwar.
Yahya had honoured his deal but did not know that the RM20 million was Eskay's portion and not Anwar which he had given to.
As a proxy of Anwar, Eskay was cheated out.
Naturally Anwar will deny he has business proxies as he once challenged to name his cronies in August 2008. Read The Star here.
Oh pleaseee... just because it is not easy to proof in court, it does not mean he doesn't have crony, in fact lots of cronies.
Just recall the list of names that secured privitasation projects that Tun Dr Mahathir put up at the 1998 UMNO General Assembly. Anwar was speechless as many saw his cronies and corporate boys were getting quite a fair share.
Read Rocky Bru here
All we need to do to call Anwar's bluff is to refer to a Statutory Declaration by former Deputy Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia, Dato Abdul Murad bin Khalid dated Oct 26, 1999 [read in full here].
Our interest is on 12 e, where Murad described a corporate deal involving Faiz Abdullah, Arus Murni, KUBB and Hong Leong, below:
(e) I was directed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to help Encik Faiz Abdullah (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ghost writer), together with Seow Lun Hoo of Hong Leong to buy into Kewangan Usaha Bersatu Berhad (KUBB), then owned by ldris Hydraulic Berhad. The scheme involved using Arus Murni Berhad formerly known as Timuran Berhad, a company listed on the Main Board of the KLSE as the holding company. I approached the following banks to help syndicate the loan for the purchase of KUBB shares costing above RM400 million: 1. Hong Leong Bank. 2. Hong Leong Finance. 3. Sime Bank 4. RHB Bank. 5. Southern Bank. 6. BSN Commercial Bank. Faiz Abdullah is a verv clever ghost writer and political operator for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He is also a lawyer, ex-joumalist and ex-SpecialBranch police officer.Since Anwar's released, Murad has turned around to deny his Statutory Declaration. It's actually a crime to change one's Statutory Declaration. Let that be for awhile.
Raja Petra has another version of it, a spinned version claiming some character forced Murad to admit. Read Malaysia Today here.
Alas ... it's too late.
Except for the contribution to various NGOs and Think Tank, the information tallies with what the market talk and development back then.
Anyone interested can read this 2004 analyst report on Arus Murni here. Sounds rosy hehehe ...
The above excercise occurs in 1995 to 1996.
We remembered how they played up the shares using a ridiculous rumour of Nova Scotia Bank selling their Kuala Lumpur branch to Arus Murni in 1994. That way the shares rose sufficiently for them to meet their margin.
By 1997, they couldn't carry the fiancial burden of KUBB and also KUBB's problem.
They cut a deal with Hong Leong Finance Berhad to acquire KUBB from Arus Murni in 1998 but may have been rejected by BNM because KUBB was acquired by BNM from Arus Murni the following year.
That may have been a barganing chip used to spare Hong Leong from being acquired by other Bank in the first round of Bank consolidation exercise. It was Anwar that finally helped the Hong Leong to acquire Mui Bank Berhad. They have been denied banking license by both the Malasysian and Singaporean Government since time immemorial.
Arus Murni had made several acquisition related to their core activities. But by 2001, Arus Murni was under PN4 and were sold off. It is today Naim Indah Corporation Berhad.
The shareholders of Arus Murni are still caught in a legal battle with Hong Leong Finance for loans owned, mostly to buy Arus Murni shares back then. The latest Free Malaysia Today report from the High Courts this morning, below:
Trade dispute: Judge rejects bid to include AnwarHas Hong Leong decided that Anwar is a lost cause and it is time to swing something for BN?
G Vinod, March 19, 2012
The High Court dismisses businessman's application saying it's too late to include Anwar Ibrahim in his case.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today dismissed an application by a businessman to include former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim in a suit involving a failed acquisition process in 1998.
In her verdict, Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail told the legal counsel for businessman, Low Thiam Hoe, that the proposed amendment had come too late in the course of the trial.
In 1997, Hong Leong Finance Bhd filed a suit against Low, Mekuritek Sdn Bhd and Arus Murni Sdn Bhd over non-payment of loans amounting to RM445 million.
The loans were given to the parties in a bid to acquire financial institution, Kewangan Bersatu Bhd.
Anwar was serving as the finance minister at that point of time and one of Arus Murni’s directors, Mohd Faiz Abdullah, was purported to be Anwar’s speech writer.
Each defendant was sued for over RM28 million plus interest for the non-repayment of the loans.
On why the case was being heard now when it was filed in 1998, the lawyer serving for all three defendants, D Paramalingam, said Hong Leong had not pursued the matter since 2005.
“All of a sudden, the plaintiff (Hong Leong) decided to proceed with the case,” said Paramalingam.
The hearing of the case would resume on March 28.
Ask also why is Anwar being considered for lawsuit? He must be involved and possibly like Eskay's case, he also has a cut. Otherwise, why would the three defendents want to drag him now?
He may be relieved from being called to court. The mystery will linger on but it is the three alleged proxies that will be saddled with the loan to pay up.
By the way, it is believed Eskay is going to drag him to court too. He should subpoena Anwar.
Now, did Anwar say he has no crony and proxy?