The MACC has no jurisdiction over Riza Aziz or Red Granite

The MACC is hinging its entire discovery exercise into Red Granite Pictures purely on a 20th of July 2016 report issued by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

The 2016 report was prepared pursuant to terms contained within a controversial loophole that exists in American jurisprudence.

Known as Civil Forfeitures, the loophole allows the DoJ to file forfeiture proceedings against any individual or company suspected of crime or illegal activity hinged solely on complaints filed by a third party.

US law has it that for the complaints to be filed, the complainant must imply that the individual or company he (or she) is filing the complaints against wrongdoing on American soil.

Under the circumstances, the MACC has no jurisdiction to question Riza or act on him given that its entire discovery exercise is hinged purely on the DoJ report that relates to crimes committed on American soil.

THE THIRD FORCE

Riza Aziz has been travelling to and fro the MACC for three consecutive days beginning the 3rd of July 2018. The stepson of former premier Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak, Riza spent close to nine hours each day entertaining questions from the anti-graft agency. According to the Star Online, Riza may have been questioned on the alleged use of 1MDB funds to finance the production of several Hollywood movies.

And that’s true.

A well-placed source told The Third Force today that the MACC’s concern with Riza has to do with Red Granite Pictures, a United States (US) private-owned entity he co-founded to produce the said Hollywood movies. The Third Force was made to understand that the anti-graft agency is hinging its entire discovery exercise into the company purely on a 20th of July 2016 report issued by the US Department of Justice (DoJ). That immediately brings to question the reason the MACC decided to train its guns on Riza this very moment.

Was the agency so inconsiderate that it did not want Riza to attend the hearing? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the lead prosecutor’s case against Najib is also hinged on the very same DoJ report the MACC is latching it’s discovery into Riza on. Not many are aware, that the 2016 report was prepared pursuant to terms contained within a controversial loophole that exists in American jurisprudence.

Known as Civil Forfeitures, the loophole allows the DoJ to file forfeiture proceedings against any individual or company suspected of crime or illegal activity hinged solely on complaints filed by a third party. US law has it that for the complaints to be filed, the complainant must imply that the individual or company he (or she) is filing the complaints against committed wrongdoing on American soil. The law clearly states that the filing of any forfeiture proceedings is a civil matter and has nothing to do with a criminal conviction of any sort.

Long story short, the American law has a loophole that allows any Tom, Dick and Harry to file a complaint against an individual or company he (or she) suspects conducted illegal activity on American soil. In 2015, Dr Mahathir’s lawyer and confidante, Matthias Chang, flew to the US to file a complaint against Najib and 1MDB on suspicion that the former premier defrauded both the wealth fund and the government of Malaysia. Matthias was accompanied by Dato’ Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan, who went around the globe lodging police reports against Najib in several other countries.

The complaints filed by the duo led to the DoJ report which has since become the basis to the MACC’s discovery. What this means, is that the anti-graft agency is latching its entire investigation on a report that is based on suspicion and not material evidence. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) admitted that it had yet to commence investigations at the time the DoJ announced the filing of civil forfeiture proceedings against Red Granite.

So what jurisdiction does the MACC have over Riza?

Is the agency not aware that the crime Riza is suspected of having committed – which, incidentally, was never once spelt out in concise terms in the DoJ report – falls under US jurisprudence? Did nobody tell Dato’ Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull that the MACC has no authority to act on Riza until and unless the agency has evidence to show that the stepson of Najib Razak committed crime on Malaysian soil? But how could the agency possess such evidence given that its discovery is hinged purely on a report by the US DoJ?

See the conspiracy yet?

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments



Loading...