1MDB maliciously filed lawsuit against me
KUALA LUMPUR: Former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) chairman Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah told the High Court here today that the sovereign wealth fund had bad intentions when it filed the lawsuit against him in May 2021.
Mohd Irwan said this was because he was a senior and high-ranking civil servant, holding the post of secretary general in the Ministry of Finance, while at that time Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was the Prime Minister and also the Minister of Finance.
'1MDB's main target was Datuk Seri Najib. However, they wanted to blame someone other than Datuk Seri Najib, and I was an easy target because of my position as the secretary-general of the Ministry of Finance.
'1MDB also wanted to sensationalise their case by falsely alleging that I was aligned to Datuk Seri Najib and his alleged wrongdoings and that I, somehow, conspired or colluded with Datuk Seri Najib in failing in my duties and responsibility to take the relevant steps to investigate the wrongdoers,' he said.
Mohd Irwan said this in his witness statement when testifying as the second defendant during the hearing of the USD6.59 billion lawsuit filed by 1MDB, as plaintiff, against him and former 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy for breach of trust and conspiracy.
Mohd Irwan, who was former Treasury secretary-general said the filing of the suit was also clearly selective prosecution and done only to bring disrepute against him.
He said this was clear as he had resigned in 2018 and it was only three years later in 2021 when the then government had changed hands after the 14th General Election, was this action filed against him.
He said that at no point in time from May 2018 till May 2021 was a demand issued against him or was he asked to answer any allegations or given a chance to explain matters belatedly raised against him.
'Their conduct of bad faith is further shown when they filed this claim for alleged breach of duties as member of the board but yet, chose not to include the remaining members of the board at that material time namely Datuk Kamal Mohd Ali and Datuk Seri Norazman Ayob despite being aware that all decisions were collective decisions and none of the allegations made was a decision that I made on my own accord or attempted to push through without the consensus and approval of the entire board,' he said.
Mohd Irwan said as a result of the lawsuit, he lost his reputation and his credibility had been tarnished.
'I am subject to ridicule and having to defend myself constantly. As a result, it is very difficult for me to continue to hold certain directorships as people are sceptical and weary of the allegations that have been made against me. Apart from that, I had to incur legal expenses in appointing solicitors to defend me,' he said.
The hearing before Judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan continues on May 19.
In May 2021, 1MDB filed a lawsuit against Mohd Irwan and Arulkanda, accusing them of breach of trust and conspiracy, which led to losses of USD1.83 billion, linked to the company's investment in 1MDB-Petrosaudi Ltd, which was subsequently converted into the Brazen Sky Limited investment, purportedly recoverable from the Bridge Global Fund.
1MDB also alleged that both defendants committed breach of trust and conspiracy by misappropriating USD3.5 billion in company funds paid to Aabar Investments and USD1.265 billion paid to International Petroleum Investment Company on May 9, 2017.
1MDB further alleged that Mohd Irwan conspired with Arul Kanda to extend his employment agreement, resulting in a payment of RM2,905,200 to Arul Kanda, all while disregarding the company's interests, which ultimately led to financial losses and damages.
Consequently, 1MDB is seeking USD6.59 billion in damages from both defendants and an additional RM2.9 million from Mohd Irwan related to the extension of the employment agreement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Focus Malaysia
2 days ago
- Focus Malaysia
Siti Kasim: Maybe hard for PMX to gain immunity from Federal Court judging from Najib's precedent
THERE is already a precedent whereby the Federal Court had previously ruled against now incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak to be granted immunity from the extraordinary claim (civil suit) filed against the Malaysian Government by then Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua in January 2017. Premised on the common law tort of misfeasance in public office, the thrust of the claim was that Najib had committed misfeasance in public office in relation to the sovereign fund 1MDB. It was alleged that the then 10-term Pekan MP had abused his public office by personally benefitting from the receipt of monies from the 1MDB fund. Against such backdrop, human rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim opined that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is liable for the civil suit on se*ual harassment filed against him by his former research assistant Yusoff Rawther four years ago. 'Recall that Pua lost his case at both the High Court and Appeal Court levels but the Federal Court ruled that Najib can be charged with misfeasance in public office given the PM or any minister for the matter are regarded as civil servants,' she recounted on her latest YouTube rant. 'Moreover, in my personal opinion a PM should not be exempted from any civil suit in his personal capacity … After all, the civil suit filed by Yusoff revolves around sexual assault on him prior to him having assumed his PM office.' Added the Orang Asli advocate: 'Going by the precedent set by Najib's case, Anwar can be sued on grounds that a PM doesn't enjoy immunity but it seems that Yusoff has to wait for a few more years before the hearing of his civil suit can materialise. 'He may now have to wait for the decision of the Federal Court on Anwar's immunity claim first … We can only pray that justice shall prevail for the righteous party.' PMX seeks immunity For context PMX had on yesterday (May 27) sought the Federal Court ruling if he should be granted immunity from the civil suit filed by Yusoff prior to him taking office on Nov 24, 2022. The 31-year-old grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris had filed his civil suit in July 2021 in which he alleged that Anwar had sexually assaulted him on Oct 2, 2018 at Anwar's residence in Segambut, Kuala Lumpur. In his countersuit, Anwar claimed that Yusoff's allegation of sexual harassment against him is unfounded as he was entertaining his family and friends at his residence. The KL High Court last year fixed the trial to be heard from June 16 to 19 and June 23 to 25. However, Yusoff found himself charged in the KL High Court on Dec 5 last year here with trafficking in 305gm of cannabis in addition to having in his possession two imitation pistols to which he pleaded not guilty. Framed under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the drug charge which is punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act, provides life imprisonment and whipping of not less than 12 lashes upon conviction. 'Throughout his drug and pistol trial, Yusoff has incessantly claimed that he has been trapped and framed by people in the authority who holds grudges against him for his civil suit,' observed Siti Kasim. 'Additionally, Yusoff also filed two police reports by calling for investigation against Anwar's former political secretary Datuk Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak but the police have yet to act on the reports filed by Yusoff.' – May 28, 2025 Main image credit: SK Studio/YouTube
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- New Straits Times
IRB makes stamping of job contracts mandatory from 2026
PUTRAJAYA: The Inland Revenue Board (IRB) has announced that all employment contracts between employers and employees must be stamped from Jan 1, 2026. This directive follows the phased implementation of the Stamp Duty Self-Assessment System (STSDS), as outlined in the 2025 Budget. In a statement today, the IRB said it had begun comprehensive stamp duty audit activities nationwide since January, following the issuance of the Stamp Duty Audit Framework (RKADS). "Through these audit activities and compliance operations, one of the key findings is that many employment contracts have not been stamped as required under Item 4, First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949, which stipulates a stamp duty of RM10," the IRB said. To ease the burden on employers, the Ministry of Finance has agreed to exempt employment contracts executed before Jan 1, 2025, from stamp duty. This exemption is granted under the powers of the Finance Minister in subsection 80(1A) of the Stamp Act 1949, while the authority to remit late-stamping penalties falls under subsection 47A(2), which empowers the Collector of Stamp Duty. Employment contracts finalised between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2025, will still be subject to stamp duty. However, the IRB will grant a remission of late-stamping penalties, provided the contracts are stamped by Dec 31, 2025. From Jan 1, 2026, all employment contracts must be stamped promptly, as any delays will result in penalties. In light of these developments, the IRB has urged employers to review and update existing and upcoming contracts to ensure full compliance with the Stamp Act 1949.
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Malay Mail
IRB announces compulsory stamping for employment contracts from 2026, penalties for late compliance
PUTRAJAYA, June 6 — The Inland Revenue Board (IRB) has announced that all employment contracts between employers and employees must be stamped starting January 1, 2026. This directive is in line with the phased implementation of the Stamp Duty Self-Assessment System (STSDS) as outlined in the 2025 Budget. In a statement today, the IRB said it has already begun comprehensive stamp duty audit activities nationwide since January this year, following the issuance of the Stamp Duty Audit Framework (RKADS). 'Through the audit activities and compliance operations, one of the key findings has been that many employment contract documents between employers and employees have not been stamped as required under Item 4, First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949, where the stamp duty is set at RM10,' according to the statement. It said to ease the burden on employers, the Ministry of Finance has agreed to exempt employment contracts executed before January 1, 2025, from stamp duty obligations. This requirement is enforced based on the powers granted to the Minister of Finance under subsection 80(1A) of the Stamp Act 1949 and the authority to remit late stamping penalties provided to the Collector of Stamp Duty under subsection 47A(2) of the Stamp Act 1949. In addition, employment contracts finalised from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025, will be subject to stamp duty. However, a remission of late stamping penalties will be granted, provided that the employment contracts are stamped on or before December 31, 2025. This relief is exercised under the powers of the Collector of Stamp Duty under subsection 47A(2) of the Stamp Act 1949. According to the IRB, starting January 1, 2026, employment contracts finalised from that date onwards will be subject to stamp duty, and any delays in stamping will result in penalties being imposed. In light of these developments, the IRB urges all employers to review and update existing and upcoming employment contracts to ensure full compliance with stamping requirements as stipulated under the Stamp Act 1949. — Bernama
