Most Read
Most Commented
mk-logo
News
Abdul Rahman, DOJ knew better than to talk to 1MDB

YOURSAY | ‘1MDB couldn’t even provide the necessary documents to the auditor-general.’

Rahman Dahlan: DOJ should have talked to 1MDB first

Pemerhati: The United States has a lot of experience in dealing with a large number of countries. If they find that the leadership of a country is crooked, they will not rely on the information given by that country but will seek the truth by other means.

For instance, the US did not inform Pakistan that they had a good idea as to where Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country.

They quietly went in on their own and killed him in Pakistan because they felt that if they had informed the Pakistanis then there was a strong possibility that they would have informed Osama and he would have then gone and hidden elsewhere.

In the case of 1MDB, the US knows that since Najib is allegedly the main culprit in the whole scam there is very little chance that they will get any useful information from the authorities as they are all under Najib’s control.

They have thus got all the necessary information from other sources, just as they did in the bin Laden case.

Tan Kim Keong: What courtesy is Minister in the PM’s Department Abdul Rahman Dahlan talking about?

The need for courtesy is irrelevant in this case because the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the attorney-general (AG) have already concluded that everything is in order and found no evidence of corruption.

The DOJ did their own investigation and they followed the money trail that obviously was not the trail that PAC and the AG followed.

Rupert16: Don't pull a fast one, Abdul Rahman. 1MDB management could not even provide the necessary documents when the company was audited by the auditor-general.

In any case, DOJ’s information on the alleged money laundering was through its cooperation with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

I.AM.Malaysian: Abdul Rahman said the DOJ report is based on Sarawak Report. Really?

You expect us to believe DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) just cut and past the information without conducting its own investigation?

Firstly, the truth is the truth. Secondly, 1MDB was never really cooperative, even with our own internal investigation. As our auditor-general’s report said, 1MDB failed to provide bank statements crucial to the investigation.

Anonymous 2362021442199789: The insinuation that the DOJ only based its court filings on reports by an online news website (Sarawak Report) is totally ludicrous.

In fact, the uncanny similarity of the FBI and DOJ investigations' findings to what was reported by The Wall Street Journal and Sarawak Report only goes to confirm the veracity of their numerous exposé over the last several months.

As Malaysians we should be deeply grateful to them and the DOJ for seeking to recover what has been allegedly stolen by the thieving traitors.

As to who 'Malaysian Official 1' is, everyone knows, but protocol requires that he should not be identified by name at this juncture until criminal proceedings are initiated. All right-thinking Malaysians look forward to the day when criminal charges are filed.

Meanwhile, the seizure of the assets allegedly procured with stolen funds will help ensure that they are not sold off or removed. We should be lauding such efforts instead of trying to defend the indefensible.

SusahKes: Let me see if I hear you right, Abdul Rahman.

You claimed that the DOJ is going to go to court, present a case for the largest-ever kleptocracy suit in their country (and possibly the world), to make a claim for seizing assets worth US$1 billion, and they seem pretty confident certain that they would succeed, and they are going to tell the judge, "Your honor, we are presenting this case, not based on hard evidence, but based on what we read in Sarawak Report"?

SRMan: Abdul Rahman said if the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had any proof to drag the prime minister, then his name would be stated in the DOJ document.

DOJ, did you hear him? He is saying that the various US investigation agencies were unable to uncover any wrongdoings of the PM (Najib Razak) and hence did not mention Najib's name in the DOJ documents perhaps for fear of a legal suit by Najib.

In the next round of legal action by DOJ, it will be interesting to see whether the various US investigation agencies including the FBI, have by then done a better job in taking up the challenge of the BN strategic communications director.

Flamescanner: With this minister being responsible for the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), I have no doubts that our economy is in good hands.

After having given a good many years in this land we call home, the thought that all of this hard work to contribute in our own small ways will be completely undone by the few in power, is totally demoralising.

Yet, it is darkest just before dawn. Dawn is around a very long corner here in Malaysia. My prayer is that we have the fortitude to ride it for as long as it takes.

Telestai!: Somehow I get the feeling that Umnoputras see everything through their own political lenses. So, for Abdul Rahman, everyone is either pro-BN or anti-BN, and this includes the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the world.

I wonder what 1MDB would have told the DOJ - that the funds being laundered were fraudulently and deceptively routed to the fake Aabar and hence legally belonged to the International Petroleum International Company (IPIC)?

On the linking of Najib to the suit, take a leaf from the Chinese saying, "Wak kung chai emsai wak choot cheong", which means when one draws a picture, he doesn't need to draw out the innards as well.

Longyan Ren: This comments section is getting 99.99% one-sided. Can someone please come to Abdul Rahman's defence? No one?


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.

ADS