Although US Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her Department of Justice produced a 136-page filing seeking to seize the US assets of several Malaysians, it has furnished zero documentary evidence to prove their claims. As such, the numerous allegations made in the document remain unproven. Therefore, Lynch and the DOJ need the answer the following 10 questions to show that they are not carrying out a malicious persecution:
1. How is the US Department of Justice (DOJ) so confident that there was "an international conspiracy to launder money misappropriated from 1MDB," when they never even approached or interviewed anyone at 1MDB or the Malaysian Attorney General’s Chambers in order to determine what happened? Wouldn’t natural Justice demand that any investigation includes the interview of the alleged “victim” and all relevant parties FIRST before seeking any action by the courts?
2. Did Lynch even interview IPIC officials and was the DOJ even aware that 1MDB has documents to prove that Aabar BVI (British Virgin Islands) was owned by Aabar PJS? This proves that 1MDB sent funds to an entity which was legally owned by Aabar and IPIC.
3. Has the DOJ approached the Saudi Royal Family to confirm that the funds came from them? Are they aware that Malaysian investigators have in their possession letters from the Saudi Royal Family confirming such donations, with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al Jubeir confirming that it was a genuine donation?
4. Is Lynch aware that even the Wall Street Journal confirmed that some of the funds came from Saudi Arabia’s finance ministry? Does this not show that the Saudis indeed donated the funds? And does the DOJ now dare to accuse the Saudi Finance Ministry of stealing 1MDB funds in order to donate it to the Malaysian Prime Minister?
5. Has Lynch and the DOJ considered the fact that the Saudi royal family donates billions of dollars to Muslim countries around the world annually and the possibility that they use various bank accounts including those of trusted businessmen and individuals to make private and low-profile donations to leaders in these countries?
6. Is Lynch aware that the original complaint filed with the DOJ was made by individuals with a political agenda to topple a friendly government and that all evidence and stolen documents provided by these individuals MUST be considered suspect, given that even the person who stole the documents claims that they have been tampered with?
7. Isn’t it convenient that the DOJ’s assertions appear to be copied from the Anti-Najib Club’s list of slanderous and unproven allegations?
8. Do the very bright prosecutors in the DOJ not wonder why the Saudi Royal Family has not made any comments or statements denying the donations made to Malaysia, given how widely the issue has been reported across the Middle East and the world?
9. What credibility does Lynch have in insisting that Justice must be upheld when she herself appears to have broken the law by meeting with former US President Bill Clinton at a secret meeting even as the DOJ was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of private servers and emails while serving as Secretary of State? Would Lynch like to clarify if this was a conflict of interest and whether she was upholding Democracy and “Good Governance” by holding such secret meetings that appear to be a very major conflict of interest?
10. Why did Lynch and the DOJ stop short of identifying “Malaysian Official 1?” Is it because they are frightened of a small state in Southeast Asia with limited influence, or is it more likely that they do NOT have any concrete or enough evidence to link a named individual to the alleged crimes? Is it because the lawyers at the DOJ realised that they have been fed unproven allegations by the minions of Mahathir Mohamad? Did they also realise that naming individuals without having any proof would show the world the kind of shoddy justice and the undemocratic actions that the DOJ is now embarking upon?
0 komentar:
Catat Ulasan