In August 2013, this blog was in pursuit of the CEO of Putrajaya Holding, Dato Azlan Abdul Karim.
The allegation was for abuse power and receiving kickback which involve victimising genuine and bona fide contractors doing real and hard work. [Read it HERE and HERE.]
Today is June 27th, 2018. After 5 years, this heartless, cruel and corrupt bastard CEO was nabbed by MACC.
.Malaysiakini reported below:
RM300m project: MACC arrests 'Datuk' who leads GLCThis has been his modus operandi.
27 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm(Updated 27 Jun 2018, 5:56 pm)
The MACC has detained a CEO of a GLC to facilitate investigations into alleged corruption in the awarding of a development project in Putrajaya via tender worth RM300 million.
The 59-year-old man with a 'datuk' title was arrested at his office at noon, today.
It is learnt that the graft-buster had raided three premises in the Klang Valley to obtain documents related to the case.
According to a source, the man had allegedly abused his power to manipulate the project which was under development.
"The project was awarded to a contractor through a tender process, but due to several issues which were intentionally raised, the contractor failed to execute the project.
"It was later given to another contractor which is believed to have links to the man, and this whole show has been planned from the get-go,' said the source.
Meanwhile, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Azam Baki confirmed the arrest, but provided no further details.
In one known case, a contractor won the contract fair and square in an open tender. They met the excessively stringent specification and documentation.
They completed about 85% of a RM40 million project but was only paid about RM18 million. The claims were made to be unreasonably difficult that they finally had to give up the contract.
It turned out the contracts was passed to other contractors allegedly friendly to him. The rest one can only expect the usual.
It is unusual for an 85% completed project to be terminated.
This arrest is still no vindication because the aggrieved party had to endure financially. There are those that end up into receivership.
There are companies that took a legal recourse. However, it was a long, arduous and costly process without certainty of outcome.