KUALA LUMPUR: Defence lawyers in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) financial scandal lawsuit today questioned why the investigating witness failed to address the US$1billion (RM4.3 billion) discrepancy in payments made to the fraudulent entity.
Financial fraud investigator Richard Templeman told the court that based on his probe, the money 1MDB claims to have paid to the bogus entity Aabar Investment PJS Ltd was only US$2.2 billion, not US$3.5 billion.
Templeman said this while testifying in the US$6.59 billion lawsuit filed by the sovereign wealth fund against its former top brass, Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah and Arul Kanda Kandasamy.
It was revealed during Datuk Seri Najib Razak's criminal trial for misappropriating 1MDB funds that Aabar Investments PJS Ltd was a bogus entity set up by fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho in Seychelles.
The legitimate entity that was supposed to receive the funds was Aabar Investment PJS, without the "Limited" or "Ltd" suffix.
Templeman, under cross-examination by Irwan's lawyer Lavinia Kumaraendran, said he did not raise this issue to the plaintiff (1MDB) before the commencement of the trial nor mentioned it in his testimony.
Lavinia: Your investigation arrived at US$2.2 billion and not US$3.5 billion as stated in the 1MDB's suit?
Templeman: I can confirm it's US$2.2 billion.
Lavinia: You were given the statement of claim. In perusing the statement of claim, you knew that the sums claimed were incorrect. Didn't you tell the lawyers of 1MDB?
Templeman: I did not.
Lavinia: In your witness statement, did you state that it was US$2.2 billion and not US$3.5 billion?
Templeman: No. I did not. I gave my evidence independently.
Lavinia: Isn't it your job to inform that the claim is excessive? You have failed to inform the court it is excessive?
Templeman: I disagree.
Arul Kanda's lawyer Sanjay Mohan also raised the same concern in which he suggested that the witness could at least correct the excessive claim made by the plaintiff in his witness statement.
Sanjay: If you know there is an issue excessive of claim, isn't it your duty to inform the court it is excessive and explain why?
Templeman: I disagree. I believe that is outside my scope of evidence.
Sanjay: I put it to you, Mr Templeman, despite knowing that there was an excessive claim, you have failed to inform this as to that it is excessive, and it should have been reduced.
Templeman: I disagree.
In May 2021, 1MDB filed a suit against Arul Kanda and Irwan over an alleged breach of trust and conspiracy, causing 1MDB to suffer losses amounting to US$1.83 billion in relation to its investment in 1MDB-Petrosaudi Ltd.
1MDB also claimed that the two defendants committed a breach of trust and conspiracy by misappropriating 1MDB funds amounting to US$3.5 billion, paid to Aabar Investments and US$1.265 billion, paid to International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), on May 9, 2017.
1MDB alleged that Irwan also conspired with Arul Kanda to cause the company to implement the Employment Extension Agreement, and made a substantial payment of RM2,905,200 to Arul Kanda as per the agreement, regardless of 1MDB's interests, causing the company to suffer losses and damages.
In this regard, 1MDB, among others, demanded that the two defendants pay US$6.59 billion for the breach and an additional RM2.9 million from Irwan in relation to the Employment Extension Agreement.