KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 4): The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has applied to withdraw its legal action compelling two lawyers and their law firms to produce documents in relation to Malaysia's settlement with Goldman Sachs and Ambank over the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.
The graft busters' intention was revealed in deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Law Chin How's letter to the High Court last week. However, no reasons were cited for the withdrawal.
In the letter to High Court judge Muniandy Kannyappan, seen by The Edge, Law asked for the court to vacate lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s striking out application, slated for hearing on Jan 17. The DPP has requested that the court hold case management this week instead, for further directions.
Rosli — named as a respondent in MACC's application along with his firm, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS) — said that it was wrong to single him out when the documents sought were in the firm's possession.
RDS in turn, has written to 1MDB seeking its consent to furnish MACC with the documents requested.
A source familiar with the matter confirmed this with The Edge when contacted, adding that the anti-graft body will also do the same with its application against another lawyer, Chetan Jethwani and his firm Chetan Jethwani & Company.
It is understood that a similar letter was sent to High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin who is presiding over the matter.
The MACC had attempted to "raid" the firms on Oct 6 as part of its investigations over allegations that the respondents were involved in bribery and money laundering in Goldman's US$3.9 billion and AmBank's RM2.83 billion settlement with the Malaysian government over 1MDB.
However, the firms 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.
They also said that the authorities' conduct was in violation of legal professional privilege.
The agency then made its application in court arguing 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 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).
Both Rosli and Chetan have denied the allegations as false and without basis.