KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 9): The High Court has fixed Jan 17, 2024, to hear lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s application to strike out the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC)’s application to obtain documents pertaining to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB)’s settlement with Goldman Sachs Group and local financial institution AmBank.
High Court judge K Muniandy fixed the date after the MACC’s motion case against Rosli and the law firm Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS) was called up on Thursday afternoon.
Rosli’s counsel Harvinderjit Singh informed the court that his instructions were to have his client’s striking out application be heard first, rather than the joinder of the case against another law firm Chethan Jethwani & Co.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Law Chin How informed Muniandy that the prosecution had slight problems with the Chethan Jethwani matter, as Goldman Sachs Group has applied to intervene in case that and that High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin has fixed Jan 8 next year for hearing on Goldman Sachs’ application to intervene and Feb 2, on the transfer of the case.
Law said the prosecution wanted the striking out application by Rosli to be heard after that. However, Harvinderjit objected, saying that Rosli’s application should be heard first, as it can be done independent of the other proceeding.
Muniandy agreed to Harvinderjit’s request and fixed Jan 17 to hear Rosli’s application to strike out MACC’s application, after directing the prosecution to file their reply to Rosli’s striking out application by Nov 17, and Rosli to reply by Dec 1, and parties to file written submissions by Dec 12.
RDS was represented by counsel M Puravalen.
The judge also allowed the Malaysian Bar’s application by Anand Raj to be amicus curiae (friend of the court) to observe proceedings in the matter.
Rosli’s application to strike out MACC’s motion
MACC had filed a notice of motion at the High Court against Chethan Jethwani and RDS, to compel them to produce documents related to the settlement between 1MDB, Goldman and local financial institution AmBank.
In the motion, MACC claimed that it was investigating the firms under Section 17(a) of the MACC Act for the offence of giving or accepting gratification; and under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activity 2001 (AMLA) for purported money laundering offence.
MACC contended that the defence of privileged communication under Section 46(2) of the MACC Act and Section 126(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, does not apply to the two offences being investigated.
MACC is seeking a court order for the production of, among others, the two law firms’ accounts and all correspondence with their clients pertaining to the settlement deal.
The anti-graft agency also claimed that it was seeking the documents from RDS, to determine purported transactions of gratification and money “layering” between Goldman and RDS.
RDS has indicated that it will seek 1MDB’s permission on whether to release the document to the MACC, while Rosli in his affidavit in reply, alleges that the MACC is being used to persecute opponents of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Rosli, 62, in his application to strike out the MACC motion, described it as wrong for the MACC in singling him out as the first respondent in the application, as the documents are in the possession of the firm.
He further alleged that the commission lacks the locus standi (legal standing) in initiating the application, and does not have the power or authority to demand the documents.
He also questioned the commission’s purpose in naming him in the application and described the anti-graft agency’s action as mala fide (made in bad faith), malicious, frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and slanderous.
Rosli, in the affidavit, also alleged that it was preposterous for MACC to suggest that he stole US$1.7 billion, or some RM7 billion. Moreover, the sum showed the madness of the claim made against him. He further claimed that MACC used blog stories to build a case against him.