[HOT! MUST READ!!...]...'I'm setting the record straight ... for the second time' - Tommy Thomas

'I'm setting the record straight ... for the 

second time' - Tommy Thomas

Astro Awani |

TOMMY: I was satisfied that the prosecution had a very strong case to establish the ingredients of the offences. The documentary trail was substantial and highly credible. - Filepic

AS I have been mentioned on numerous occasions in the media release issued 

yesterday by my successor, Tan Sri Idrus bin Harun, I have to put the record 

straight a second time.

2. I took into account the benefits of the AMLA Act 2001 when I decided to 

charge Riza Aziz in July 2019 with 5 money laundering offences punishable 

under Section 4(1) of that Act for receiving proceeds of unlawful activities, 

between April 2011 and November 2012, totalling USD248 million of monies 

belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). I was satisfied that the 

prosecution had a very strong case to establish the ingredients of the offences. 

The documentary trail was substantial and highly credible. Upon conviction, the 

prosecution would have invited the trial judge to impose a sentence commensurate 

with the severity of the offences, the maximum being 15 years for each charge. 

But more significantly, the criminal court is given power by Parliament to additionally 

impose a penalty up to 5 times the amount involved in the unlawful activities, 

that is 5 times USD248 million, which would work out to some USD1.2 billion. 

We would have sought this sum upon his conviction.

3. As Public Prosecutor, I personally decided to prosecute about 25 cases. In 

each of these cases, I was briefed by MACC or the police and DPPs. I probed 

deeply. My decision-making process took time. From my trial experience, 

evidence gathering continues from initiation of proceedings until completion 

of trial. Only when I was satisfied that the prosecution could secure a conviction, 

did I make the decision to prosecute. It was always a deliberate and properly 

analysed decision. That same rigour was brought to the decision to prosecute 

Riza. In none of these 25 odd cases, did I consider favourably a request by 

any accused to settle on such terribly poor terms to the prosecution. That would 

have called into question the wisdom and integrity of my decision to prosecute 

in the first place.

4. In paragraph 2 of Tan Sri Idrus’s media release, reference is made to a 

minute I made on 19 November 2019 to Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram on the 

letter dated 18 November 2019 from Riza’s solicitors. That indeed was my 

style. After having read that letter, I wrote a couple of words or sentences to 

him. I have no access to the original letter with my handwriting. Because of 

this handicap, I cannot comment on it.

5. What is abundantly clear is that I did not make any decision in relation to 

Riza’s representation up to the date of my resignation, 28 February 2020. A 

decision of this importance involving billions of ringgit and significant public 

interest would be made by me in writing. I did not, and none exist.

READ: "I was informed Thomas agreed in principle to Riza Aziz's DNAA" - AG

BACA: Tommy Thomas setuju secara prinsip terima representasi Riza - Peguam Negara

READ: Ex-AG denies dropping money laundering charges against Riza Aziz

BACA: 'Kenyataan SPRM tidak benar, tiada persetujuan bebaskan Riza' - Tommy Thomas

6. With regard to communications with the 2 major actors, my successor and 

Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, the position is as follows. I have not communicated 

with Tan Sri Idrus since 28 February 2020. This is not unusual. I did not 

communicate with my predecessor during my tenure. I spoke on a couple of 

occasions with Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram over the telephone between 28 February 

and 14 May 2020, but this subject was never raised by him. Hence after my 

resignation, I was kept in the dark on this and all other matters.

7. In Paragraph 3 of the media release, Tan Sri Idrus states that “Malaysia is 

expected to recover approximately USD108 million”. With the greatest of respect, 

this is a red herring. By personal diplomacy, we established strong relations with 

DOJ after I took office. They have returned billions of ringgit, and more monies 

may be released in future by DOJ. The purpose of prosecuting Riza was not to 

strengthen our chances of securing monies from DOJ. DOJ would have returned 

these monies in any event because it belongs to Malaysia and was stolen from 

Malaysia. Riza is not offering to pay any new money or monies from any source 

other than DOJ seized assets. The USD108 million, would in any event be r

eturned by DOJ to Malaysia. Thus, Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for 

returning monies that are not his. Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but 

terrible for Malaysia.

8. Finally, even the timing of Riza’s DNAA is bizarre. In both civil and criminal 

proceedings which proceed to trial, a plaintiff or the prosecution loses substantial 

leverage over the adverse party if it withdraws court proceeding before the 

terms of settlement are completely performed. This is elementary. Hence, one needs 

to question why Riza has been given a DNAA so prematurely.

9. Since Tan Sri Idrus is at pains to emphasize the weight he gave to my so called 

‘agreement in principle’ (which itself is a fiction), let me state publicly that I would 

have never sanctioned this deal. I would have lost all credibility in the eyes of 

the people of Malaysia whom I endeavoured to serve as public prosecutor to the 

best of my ability, honestly and professionally if I had approved it. I would have 

betrayed the trust the Prime Minister and the PH government had reposed in me.

Tan Sri Tommy Thomas
18 May 2020

source : astroawani