KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 16): The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has taken two law firms to court in order to compel them to produce documents linked to a settlement agreement between Goldman Sachs and AmBank in relation to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.

The anti-graft body had filed two separate applications, one against lawyer Rosli Dahlan and his firm Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership, and lawyer Chetan Jethwani and his firm Chetan Jethwani & Company and other respondents.

In its application dated Oct 11, the MACC said that it was seeking the documents under the firms' "custody, care and control" to aid in the agency's investigations on allegations that Rosli and Chetan were involved in bribery and money laundering regarding Goldman's US$3.9 billion (RM18.5 billion) and AmBank's RM2.83 billion settlement with the Malaysian government over 1MDB.  

The MACC also said that, among others, the documents were needed to determine if the respondents had colluded with Goldman and others in reducing the compensation amount or "asset recovery" in the Goldman settlement and to identify the money flow and "layering" from Goldman's account to accounts of the firms.

The applications were accompanied with certificates of urgency.

According to court documents seen by The Edge, the MACC said that it faced obstacles in obtaining the documents.

This is after the respondents refused to provide any documents in relation to the investigations, insisting that a court order was needed under Section 46 of the MACC Act before searching or taking any documents from its premises.

It was reported that the MACC had attempted to 'raid' the firms on Oct 6 in connection to the investigations.

Both firms have issued statements saying that the authorities were not allowed to access any of their clients' documents at their premises. They also stressed that the authorities' conduct was in violation of legal professional privilege.

The Malaysian Bar has also released a statement saying that the law does not allow the authorities access to “privileged materials and information”.

In response to this, the prosecution in its application said that "privileged communication" under Section 46(2) of the MACC Act or Section 126(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 is not applicable in this case as the respondents and the firms were investigated by the MACC under Section 17(a) of the MACC Act 2009 and Section 4(1) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA).

The application against Chetan and his firm came up for case management before High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin on Monday (Oct 16). The application against Rosli and his firm comes up before High Court judge K Muniandy on Tuesday, according to the judiciary’s online cause list.

Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How requested for the case to be transferred to Muniandy's court and said that the prosecution would make a formal application if needed.  

However, Chetan said that he would not be able to say much on the matter until he sees an application to justify the transfer.

Muhammad Jamil then set Nov 9 to hear the transfer application.

In his affidavit in reply, Chetan noted that the application and the allegations in the investigations were "wholly false and without basis".

"I state that the specific officers of the applicant have abused their powers to concoct the impression of wrongdoing purely to obtain an unfair advantage against my client and to smear and damage my reputation," he said in his 169-page affidavit.

Moreover, Chetan added that he was not involved “in any way" with any AmBank settlement and that he was not in any position to influence the bank's negotiation with 1MDB.

He wants the court to dismiss the application with an order restraining the MACC from seeking any documents from him or his firm on the basis that the anti-graft agency's order issued during the 'raid' was unlawful and void.

In his affidavit, Chetan also said it is impossible for there to be a 'scheme' to reduce the amount of compensation or asset recovery in the settlement as the process was transparent with the participation of top officials from various enforcement and government agencies.

He added that the settlement sum was paid directly to the Malaysian government through CIMB Bank and MACC was aware of it.

Meanwhile, when contacted, Rosli said he had yet to be served with the papers as he is currently not in the country.

In his message to the press, Rosli said his firm will be opposing the application, but will always cooperate with the authorities if they were made in accordance with the law.

Last week, it was reported that Goldman Sachs was suing the Malaysian government in the London Court of International Arbitration for "violating its obligation to appropriately credit assets against the guarantee provided by Goldman" in its settlement agreement, and to recover other assets.

The Attorney General’s Chambers in a statement on Thursday said the government denies all allegations contained in Goldman Sachs’ request for arbitration on the matter, saying it mischaracterises the conduct of the government.

Responding to the suit, 1MDB task force chairman Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani said that the legal action was "premature and without due consideration of necessary prerequisites".

Read also:
Lawyer probed in purported 1MDB asset recovery graft says being victimised
Law firm in midst of MACC probe says no client documents were seized
Lawyer says move by MACC and LHDN to obtain information in probe is unlawful
Putrajaya denies breaching US$3.9 bil 1MDB settlement agreement with Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs sues Malaysia over 1MDB settlement
Goldman Sachs' suit against govt 'premature' as parties still in good faith talks over 1MDB settlement, says asset recovery taskforce chairman Johari Ghani