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?
5 comments:
anwar guna proksi untuk dapat untung atas angin. bila sykt lingkup proksi yang kena tanggung dan terpaksa di isytihar muflis
agaknya anwar memang dah bangkrap kot. cara paling senang nak dapat duit jadi balaci pihak luar. masyukkk
ada juga hikmah pada anwar bila kes ini timbul.
boleh la cover isu WSJ / Israel yang lagi sensitif tu. Ramai lebai Pas tengah pening nak defend dan marah kat anwar.
kalau setakat kes loan bank dan proksi ni, anwar boleh spin celah gigi saja masa ceramah kat kampung atau pendengar yang tak faham sistem pinjaman besar bank.
ada dia kesah hormat kes dalam sebutan mahkamah atau tidak.
In RPK article about the same issue, there is a very interesting quote.
RPK said:
"As I have always said: behind every Malay Umno politician is a Chinese business tycoon. The Chinese need the Malays to get ahead. The Malays also need the Chinese to get ahead. The Malays have political power and know how to abuse this power. The Chinese have economic power and know how to invest their money in the right politician."
This tells us that there is more need for UMNO to exist, because if PR wins and DAP managed to siphoned into power like what happen to Penang, it will be worse. This time the quote will read like "behind every Chinese business tycoon is a Chinese politician. The Chinese need the Politician to spin their rip off. The Politician also need the Chinese to tell their success story. The Chinese now no longer need the Malays to abuse this power. The Chinese already have economic power and simply have to invest their money in any Chinese politician."
The situation in Penang is a good example of what is happening. The DAP Chinese politician now team up with the Chinese tycoon to rip the state in the name of CAT.
Bro.
Tidak ada apa apa yang suprise dalam court document yang disiarkan oleh RPK.Ia hanya menyatakan yang defandent claim ia diberitahu oleh Faiz dan Hanzah yang mereka ini proxcy Anwar.Susaha mahkamah hendak terima.Tidak ada document bertulis.Ini antaras your word against my words.
Tulisan RPK juga tidak tepat.Idris Hydrolik merupakan syarikat Public co.UMNO bukan pemegang sahamnya.Malah saya boleh comfirm disini UMNO tidak memileki satu saham pun dalam Idris.Idris menjual saham syarikat kewangannya KBB kapada Arus Murni dengan harga $450 juta.Dan yang itu di terima sapenohnya oleh Idris.
Idris juga tidak membayar apa apa kommision kapada Anwar atau proxcy nya.
Saman itu berhubongan dengan pinjaman yang diambil oleh defendent untok membeli saham Arus Murni.Kenapa harus Anwar atau Quek meminjam untok membeli saham Arus Murni?
Dalam tulisan RPK ia menyatakan yang Nalla berkerja dengan Vincent Tan dalam Spot ToTo.Nalla berkerja dengan T.K Lim yang menguasai Magnum.
Sebab sabenar Vincent Tan tidak dibenarkan membeli saham MUI bank kerana mengikut peraturan Bank Negara malaysia pemegang saham syarikat Gambling tidak dibenarkan menguasai Institusi kewangan.Vinvent terpaksa membuat pilehan sama ada menguasai Spot Toto atau MUI bank.
Saya yakin tidak ada apa2 yang diperolehi dengan pendedehan ini.
Umar
Do stick to the subject. Sori Azman Hashim is not.
Nazri
Every words or statement made to or in court is accepted as good unless there is a counter answer or disputed convincingly in court.
I think you are being presumptous to assume Low cannot prove and it is a matter of heresay.
If Anwar side do not dispute, it will be an accepted and refered fact.
Should realised what it means by rejected on technical ground.
In fact there is such practise for court to reject new addition because of time factor.
If the proceeding was only kick start now, since 2005, why not give the leeway and let this clause be argued.
In the name of justice??
Post a Comment