KUALA LUMPUR (May 31): Businessman Datuk Ricky Wong Shee Kai, who has been absent from the country since 2019, is not a fugitive, according to his lawyers from the law firm Messrs Shafee & Co.
In a statement, the firm said it wanted to clarify reports in the media calling their client as such.
“The term ‘fugitive’ suggests evasion of law enforcement, which is not applicable in this context.”
The firm said their client was not wanted by the Malaysian authorities for any substantive offence, but rather, due to his alleged failure to provide a statement and/or assist with the Securities Commission Malaysia’s (SC) investigations.
“Despite this, Wong has consistently offered to provide a statement or assist with investigations remotely, which has been refused by the SC to date. Such refusal by the SC raises significant concerns by our client as to the motives behind the requirement of physical attendance on a matter that can be dealt with just as effectively by way of remote communication/video link.
“In fact, the SC had, through the Malaysian National Central Bureau (NCB), obtained an Interpol Red Notice against Wong on May 4, 2020. However, the said Red Notice was successfully challenged and set aside at Interpol’s Commission located in Lyon, France, resulting in its deletion on Feb 12, 2021, by Interpol’s Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF),” the firm said.
The removal of the Red Notice, said the firm, is due to the notice’s failure to meet Interpol’s criteria, particularly the lack of criminality, and non-compliance with Articles 12, 10, 35, and 83 of Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data.
“For context, it was held that the request by the SC through the NCB did not meet the minimum criteria to sustain an international warrant as the alleged violation of law was administrative in nature and Wong had in any event volunteered his cooperation in the SC investigations remotely.
“Following the above, a second Red Notice was requested on Oct 5, 2021, essentially repeating the same grounds as the first. This notice was again also successfully challenged and removed on Nov 22, 2022. The CCF found no new substantive charges and deemed the second notice a misuse of the Interpol system,” the firm said.
They added that the actions by the Malaysian authorities, particularly the repeated requests for Red Notices, indicate a misunderstanding or misapplication of international legal standards, and that their client had consistently expressed his willingness to cooperate with investigations and has even offered to be questioned remotely via video-conferencing or telephone.
“It is also a fact that at present, Wong has not been charged in any criminal court (in absentia or otherwise) and it is therefore highly misplaced to categorise him as a fugitive, particularly considering his repeated offers to cooperate with investigations,” the firm said, adding that their client remains committed to addressing the allegations against him through appropriate legal channels.
“We trust that his case will be considered fairly and justly, without prejudice stemming from mischaracterisations of his status or intentions by various quarters,” the firm said.
Earlier this month, the Federal Court had dismissed Wong’s application for leave to appeal against a High Court decision barring him from attending proceedings remotely and asked that he be physically available.
Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan also directed the trial to commence expeditiously and ordered Wong to pay RM20,000 costs following the dismissal of the leave to appeal.
“The court dismissed Wong’s leave application as the question of whether the trial judge had erred in his decision is a matter that can be challenged by way of appeal at the end of the trial.
“In this regard, Wong’s right to appeal is reserved — it is not that the trial judge’s decision is non-appealable, but rather it is appealable at the end of the trial and not during the course of it. It would not be appropriate for the Federal Court to interfere with the trial court’s discretion at this juncture. Thus, there is no prejudice towards Wong,” Nallini said.
Trial judge referred to Wong as a 'fugitive'
Wong, who is currently at large in an undisclosed location, is one of the defendants in a civil action brought by the SC on May 5, 2020, for allegedly contravening the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA), in using devices, schemes or artifices to defraud Bright Packaging Industry Bhd (KL:BRIGHT).
It was also reported on May 20 that Wong also dismissed his stake in the company after selling 20 million shares or a 9.74% stake in the company.
In the bourse filing, the aluminium foil packaging materials manufacturer said Wong had offloaded the stake on May 17, and he is left with an indirect stake of 23.2% or 47.63 million shares in the company, via Wong SK Holdings Sdn Bhd.
It should be noted that when High Court Judge Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad rejected Wong’s request to appear via remote communication technology (RCT), the judge reasoned that it would disrupt the administration of justice as Wong is considered a fugitive.
The judge said that to fulfil the requirement of the RCT, under Order 33 Rule 3 of Rules of Court, the defendant had to disclose his location specifically for the threshold to be met.
"It is not sufficient for the defendant to only aver in an affidavit he would log in from Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
"Since the specific location had not been disclosed, it could not be said that subsequent technical facilities were made at whichever place he wants to log in from," said Atan in his judgement.
In his broad grounds, the judge referred to Wong as a “fugitive” no less than three times.
SC: Wong has two arrest warrants issued against him
In response to the law firm’s denial that Wong is a fugitive, the SC on Friday said that two warrants of arrest had been issued against the businessman.
The SC in a statement pointed out that the KL High Court had rejected Wong’s application to attend his civil trial via RCT on July 6, 2022, as it ruled that by allowing his participation, it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Atan had also said it would be seen as an affront to the public conscience as based on the evidence, Wong is considered a fugitive who had refused to comply with the orders of the court.
“The KL High Court further noted that the defendant (Wong) had disregarded two warrants of arrest issued by the Kuala Lumpur magistrate court,” said the SC in its statement.
“The first warrant of arrest concerned two charges under Section 32(8)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) wherein he had to appear before an investigating officer of the SC as required under Section 32(2)(a) of the same Act.”
If convicted, the SC said Wong would be liable to a fine not exceeding RM3 million, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both together with the possibility of a continuing fine.
The second warrant of arrest, it added, concerned one charge under Section 369 of the CMSA wherein Wong is alleged to have furnished a false statement relating to Asia Media Group Bhd’s (AMGB) 2015 revenue to Bursa Malaysia.
“At the material time, Wong had been the executive director and CEO of AMGB. If convicted, Wong would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding RM3 million,” the statement said.
To date, the SC has taken numerous enforcement actions including, but not limited to, applying for warrants of arrest, and engaging with foreign regulators and government agencies to ascertain his whereabouts.
“In addition, the SC also sought the public’s assistance to locate and record statements from Wong and individuals associated with the defendant. It bears repeating that the enforcement actions taken by the SC have been in accordance with the applicable laws and/or procedures at all times,” the regulator said, adding that beyond this, they are not at liberty to comment further following ongoing court proceedings.