Friday, March 24, 2017

A landmark court decision that the WSJ, Sarawak Report and the like wouldn't want to know

I would like to share a message on my whatsapp this morning with my Dear Readers ...

"While a purported "intention to charge" based on sources make headlines, this landmark COURT decision seems to be ignored by WSJ and the likes. Anyway since when is "intention to charge" become a major revealing story?  In any case, isn't it oxymoron? If there is an ongoing investigation, there must be "intention" to charge ... DUH!"

Note: The sender is referring to an earlier report The US is preparing to charge financier Jho Lo on Malaysian 1MDB scandal published by WSJ on March 21

The landmark court decision the WSJ is allegedly ignoring:

(Bloomberg) -- Family members of Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho were allowed to challenge U.S. attempts to confiscate hundreds of millions in real estate and other investments allegedly acquired with money siphoned from a state investment fund. 
A federal judge in Los Angeles this week granted requests by the holding companies that control the assets on behalf of Low to file late claims in eight forfeiture lawsuits. The holding companies asked for permission to file claims after courts in New Zealand and the Cayman Islands allowed them to swap out the Swiss trustees that had refused to fight the U.S. allegations. 
The Low assets at issue include a stake in New York’s Park Lane Hotel, a $107 million interest in EMI Music Publishing, a $35 million Bombardier Jet and a $30 million penthouse at Time Warner Center in New York. The U.S. has asked for default judgments against some of the assets because no valid claims had been filed in time. 
The Justice Department filed more than a dozen cases last year to recover over $1 billion in real estate and other assets the government claims were bought by Low, known as Jho Low, and his accomplices with money stolen from 1Malaysia Development Bhd. The family members, including Low’s brother and father, had previously been denied permission to bring claims because as beneficiaries of the trusts, rather than trustees, they have no legal standing to fight the U.S. allegations. 
U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer rejected what she called the U.S.’s “rough justice" argument that the Low family couldn’t have it “both ways" by shielding their assets in convoluted ownership structures and at the same time being allowed to pursue claims by replacing the trustees who had failed to do their bidding.
‘Inevitable Conclusion’
“While the government’s ‘live by the complex ownership structure, die by the complex ownership structure’ argument has a certain appeal, consideration of the relevant tests leads to the inevitable conclusion that the defaults should be lifted and the claimants should be allowed to file late claims," Fischer said in a ruling Tuesday. 
Low, who is known for partying with Hollywood celebrities Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, is also friends with Riza Aziz, a stepson of Malaysia’s prime minister and a producer of “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which the U.S. alleges was funded with stolen money. 
Low has said he provided consulting to 1MDB that didn’t break any laws, while the fund and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak have both denied wrongdoing. 
The case is U.S.A. v. Any Rights to Profits, Royalties and Distribution Proceeds Owned by or Owed to JW Nile (BVI) Ltd., 16-cv-05364, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).


  1. Anonymous3:00 pm

    Adakah JHLow tak hantam duit 1MDB RMbillions , berclubbing , berjudi, berbetina bersama Riza Aziz@filem sex ,thewolf of wallstreet?

  2. Macam mau muntah la Latok to read your article or copy paste article in order to made Jibon look "clean".

  3. xnakdedak7:07 pm

    Your desperation to defend the thieves is really touching, Latuk.

    The rakyat applauds your "journalism".

    And you're not even getting paid!!!!!!!

    How sweet.

    PS: Oh, what happened to the convenient "civil / criminal" divide that was tried as spin when the DOJ case broke?

    Dah lupa ke : )

  4. Tebing Tinggi XVII3:33 pm

    Early days yet.

    Or are you trying to "second guess" the eventual decision of the US courts?

    And why is it a "landmark decision"? No novel interpretations of case law were made by the judge in question.

  5. Anonymous4:29 pm

    The word "landmark" is your characterisation. Why is it considered a landmark decision? What legal new ground has this case broken to be considered a "landmark" case?
    And you are an expert in US law?
    You have some dedak at the corner of your mouth you've forgotten to wipe off.

  6. Anonymous1:16 pm

    It's clear you have absolutely zero understanding of legal proceedings in the USA, a country where the judges have actual independence from the government of the day. What utter nonsense you write. "Landmark" - It was a procedural application, where the judge agreed only that the entities associated with Jlow have legal standing to join the proceedings. It is not an assessment of the validity of their claims - contrary to what your ridiculous headline asserts.