Showing posts with label PetroSaudi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PetroSaudi. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

How Jho Low & PetroSaudi schemed to steal money from the people of Malaysia via 1MDB

View and read more HERE
Why we say the US$1.83 billion 1 Malaysia Development Bhd invested in Petro Saudi International between 2009 and 2011 was a scheme to defraud Malaysia
Key Points:
1. The joint-venture agreement was signed on Sept 28, 2009. The terms include 1MDB contributing US$1.0 billion cash for a 40% stake in the JV Co called 1MDB PetroSaudi Ltd. PetroSaudi Holdings Cayman will put in assets worth US$2.7 billion. The JV Co will be valued at US$2.5 billion with PetroSaudi Holdings’ 60% stake derived  from assets it will inject into the JV Co.
2. The valuation of the assets that PetroSaudi Holdings will put in was done by one Edward Morse who was hired by PetroSaudi and work was done within days. Morse was issued his appointment letter on Sept 20, 2009 and submitted his report on Sept 29, 2009 — a day after the JV was signed. He valued the Turkmenistan assets at US$3.5 billion and the Argentinian assets at US$108 million.
3. PetroSaudi Holdings never owned the Turkmenistan assets that were to be injected into the JV Co. Those assets were owned by Buried Hill Energy (Cyprus) Co Limited. PetroSaudi Holdings was only in negotiation to buy the assets from Buried Hill. They signed a negotiation agreement on July 4, 2009 and this was eventually terminated on Nov 23, 2009.
4. 1MDB did not hire its own independent valuer to do the valuation. 1MDB management did not comply with a decision of its own board of directors to do an independent valuation.
5. PetroSaudi Holdings committed FRAUD by selling assets which it did not own into the JV Co.
6. Lawyers for 1MDB, Wong & Partners, as well as the 1MDB board of directors were not given the valuation report by Edward Morse until after Sept 30, 2009 — two days after the JV agreement was signed.
7. When the deposit money of US$7.1 million paid to Buried Hill was returned after the negotiation was cancelled, the cash was not returned to the JV Co but to PetroSaudi Holdings. This deposit money should have been returned to the JV Co as it formed part of the assets sold by PetroSaudi Holdings to the JV Co.
8. There was also FRAUD in the creation of a fake US$700 million loan from PetroSaudi Holdings to the JV Co. These are the evidence of fraud:
a) There was no corresponding cash in the JV Co or any of its subsidiaries on or after Sept 25, 2009 (the date the loan agreement was signed). But a letter of demand dated Sept 29, 2009 from PetroSaudi Holdings was sent to the JV Co to pay the loan.
b) From the US$1 billion cash that 1MDB remitted for the JV, US$700 million was paid directly from 1MDB to Good Star Limited instead of the supposed lender PetroSaudi Holdings.
c) The scheme to scam US$700 million from 1MDB was discussed as “over payment” in various email exchanges and attachments between Jho Low and his associates Seet Li Lin, Tiffany Heah, with PetroSaudi executives Patrick Mahony and Tarek Obaid between Sept 11, 2009 and the signing of the JV on Sept 28, 2009.
d) Timothy Buckland (from the UK law firm of White & Case which represented PetroSaudi Holdings) admitted in an email to Charlie Sparrow of PetroSaudi Holdings and copied to Mahony that the letter of demand for repayment of the US$700 million loan was not needed but only “necessary for your docs to legitimise prepayment”.
e) The board of directors of 1MDB was not told about this “loan” prior to the signing of the JV on Sept 28, 2009.
9. The remittance of the US$700 million from 1MDB to Good Star at its bank account at RBS Coutts (Zurich) approved by then 1MDB CEO Sharol Halmi was done without the consent of the 1MDB board of directors which had approved payment of the entire US$1 billion directly to the bank account of the JV Co at JP Morgan Suisse (SA). Two directors of 1MDB Mohd Bakke Salleh and Azlan Zainol resigned because of this payment of US$700 million to Good Star.
10. This transfer of the US$700 million was also a breach of the approval given by Bank Negara Malaysia for 1MDB to remit US$1 billion for the JV. BNM approved payment to the account of the JV Co at JP Morgan Suisse (SA) and not to anyone else.
Why we say Good Star was controlled by Jho Low at the time 1MDB transferred US$700 million
Key Points:
1. 1MDB’s lawyers Wong & Partners, had questioned why the US$700 million was to be paid to Good Star Limited and not to the “lender” PetroSaudi Holdings Cayman. Patrick Mahony, the CEO of the JV Co, said that they were all part of the same company. He lied.
2. 1MDB had on Sept 29, 2009 remitted US$700 million to account number 11116073 at RBS Coutts Zurich. The Malaysian remittance bank was Deutsche Bank Malaysia. RBS Coutts’ risk and compliance unit wanted to know the beneficial owner of the account and then 1MDB CEO Shahrol Halmi replied that it was Good Star Limited.
3. Email communication between the banks and 1MDB on this payment was forwarded to Jho Low by 1MDB executive director Casey Tang.
4. Good Star executed an agreement on Sept 30, 2009  to pay  PetroSaudi Holdings’ executive and shareholder Tarek Obaid US$85 million as broker fee. If Good Star was part of PetroSaudi why was there a need to do this?
5. Good Star signed a draft investment management agreement with another PetroSaudi executive Patrick Mahony on Sept 29, 2009. The chief investment officer of Good Star in the agreement was Seet Li Lin, an employee of Jho Low at Jynwell Capital. The metadata of this document in an email attachment showed Jho Low to be the last person to save this file on Oct 1, 2009.
6. On July 21, 2010, Jho Low emailed to Mahony’s Good Star bank account details at RBS Coutts in Zurich to receive part of the US$500 million that was to come from the Murabaha notes 1MDB was to subscribe.
7. On Sept 13, 2010, Jho Low emailed again to Mahony asking him to remit the money to Good Star.
8. Between June 2011 and September 2013, Good Star remitted a total of US$529 million in several transfers to a bank account at the Swiss private bank BSI in Singapore that belonged to Abu Dhabi-Kuwait-Malaysia Investment Corp (ADKMIC).
9. Jho Low has been identified as the beneficial owner of that bank account which was closed in February, 2014.
10. Jho Low had declared himself as a shareholder of ADKMIC when he was involved in the acquisition of the then Bursa Malaysia-listed UBG Bhd in 2010.
Who got what and the trail of international money laundering
Key Findings:
1. Good Star Limited received in total about US$970 million from the US$1.83 billion that 1MDB invested with PetroSaudi Holdings Cayman between 2009 and 2011. From this amount of US$970 million, US$529 million went to the bank account of Abu Dhabi Kuwait Malaysia Investment Corp (ADKMIC) at BIS Bank in Singapore. Jho Low was the beneficial owner of that account.
2. Javace Sdn Bhd, the company that Jho Low used in the 2010 takeover of UBG Bhd, received US$260 million via a loan from PetroSaudi International Seychelles. That money was transferred from the JP Morgan bank account of Tarek Obaid which he received from the US$500 million Murabaha notes subscribed by 1MDB in Sept, 2010. (See The Money Trail Flow Chart)
3. Besides the US$260 million, Tarek Obaid received in total another  US$240 million from 1MDB.  From this, US$77 million was paid to his partner at PetroSaudi, Prince Turki, US$33 million to Patrick Mahony and US$1.0 million to Nawaf Obaid. (See Money Trail Flow Chart).
4. Various PetroSaudi companies received around US$330 million, of which US$185 million was used to buy a drill ship.
5. Some of the money received by these individuals were  used for their personal investments. For example, Mahony used US$10 million (6.5 million pounds) to buy a house in his home country the United Kingdom. (See Money Trail Flow Chart)
6.  All these point to a clear case of fraud and international money laundering. 1MDB’s money went from Malaysia to Switzerland via US clearing banks and then to the United Kingdom, the UAE and Singapore.
7. What happened to 1MDB’s money is no longer a domestic issue but is a global fraud and money laundering matter involving the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Singapore. Global banks like JP Morgan, RBS Coutts, Credit Suisse, HSBC, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, BSI and others have all been channels for the money flow.
Covering the US$2.23 billion hole (Original US$1.83 billion cash & US$400 million paper profit) hidden as units in the Cayman SPC via the US$2.23 billion payment to retire the Aabar options
Key Findings:
1.  With the US$1.83 billion cash 1MDB invested with PetroSaudi Holdings Cayman all gone, how then can it cover the hole plus the so-called US$400 million in declared profit that it was supposed to have made?
2. By 2012, all the US$2.23 billion was captured as Murabaha notes issued by PetroSaudi. It was later “redeemed” for a 49% stake in PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd (PSOSL).
3. On Sept 12, 2012, 1MDB “sold” this 49% interest in PSOSL to Bridge Partners International Investment Ltd for US$2.32 billion.  Bridge Partners International did not pay cash but issued promissory notes as payment.
4. On the same day, 1MDB through its subsidiary Brazen Sky Ltd, invested these US$2.32 billion of promissory notes in a fund called Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC which was managed by Bridge Partners Investment Manager (Cayman). According to its prospectus, the fund makes high risk investments and investors can lose all its money.
5. The actual value of the US$2.32 billion kept in the SPC was unverifiable and the dispute 1MDB had with its then external auditor over this was the reason why KPMG was sacked for refusing to sign off the accounts for FY March 31, 2014.
6. Throughout 2013 and 2014, 1MDB’s board of directors had pressed its management to redeem the money from Cayman, because it was getting worried over the increased scrutiny by its external auditors.
7. Disputes and disagreements between 1MDB and Ernst & Young and then KPMG were primarily over the inability of 1MDB and Bridge Partners Investment Manager to provide enough proof that the fund was worth the US$2.32 billion ascribed to it or that they were readily realisable to be categorised as Available-For-Sale Investments in the audited accounts.
8. Subsequent to this, Aabar Investments stepped in to guarantee Bridge Partners International’s US$2.32 billion debt to 1MDB held as units in the Cayman SPC.
Covering The Hole:
1. In 2012, the International Petroleum Investment Corp (IPIC) of Abu Dhabi was given an option to subscribe to 49% of the future listing of the power assets owned by 1MDB. This 10-year option, which was later transferred to IPIC’s associate Aabar Investments, was for co-guaranteeing two bonds totalling US$3.5 billion that 1MDB issued.
2. In May, 2014,  1MDB and Aabar signed an agreement to terminate the options. This was stated in Page 172 of 1MDB’s FY2014 accounts but no details were given.
3. In page 169 of the FY2014 accounts, it was stated that 1MDB had obtained a bridging loan of US$250 million to buy back the options.
4. In page 171, it was stated that on Sept 2, 2014, Aabar had written to 1MDB that it wished to terminate the options according to the terms set out in the agreement signed in May. Again, no details were given.
5. 1MDB has never given out enough details of the terms and costs of terminating the Aabar options. But 1MDB appeared to have paid Aabar the following as termination costs:
i) US$250 million paid in May, 2014
ii) US$975 million paid in September, 2014 via a Deutsche Bank loan
iii) US$993 million paid in November, 2014 via a partial redemption of the Cayman SPC funds.
6. This adds up to a total of US$2.22 billion.
7. The scheme to cover the US$2.32 billion hole at the Cayman SPC is by paying Aabar US$2.22 billion as option termination fee. Aabar then passes the money to the Cayman SPC from which 1MDB would then be able to redeem the money, thus covering the money that was already gone.
8. The termination fee totalling US$2.22 billion that 1MDB paid to Aabar between May and November, 2014 was, however, not reflected in the FY December, 2014 of IPIC (which owns 100% of Aabar) as income or revenue. There were no such entries in IPIC’s accounts. This reinforces our analysis that the termination fees paid to Aabar were in reality used to cover the hole at the Cayman SPC.

How Jho Low & associates made RM1.0 billion through a series of transactions involving Putrajaya Perdana Bhd, Loh & Loh Corp Bhd and UBG Bhd financed partly by using US$260 million of 1MDB’s money
Key Findings:
jho-low_money_involving_fd200715
1. Between 2008 and 2010, Jho Low (pic)made RM166 million entering and exiting listed companies like Putrajaya Perdana Bhd, Loh & Loh Corp Bhd and another RM350 million through the injection of a piece of land he owned in Medini, Iskandar to UBG Bhd via an asset management company called Unity Capital.
2. In September, 2010, a Jho Low-controlled company called Javace Sdn Bhd made a RM1.4 billion offer to take over UBG. This was financed by a RM700 million bank loan and a US$260 million loan from PetroSaudi International Seychelles through Tarek Obaid’s bank account. That US$260 million came from the subscription by 1MDB to murabaha notes totalling US$500 million issued that same month by PetroSaudi.
3. After the takeover by Javace, UBG had  these assets (i) Putrajaya Perdana that was worth around RM680 million (ii) Loh & Loh which was worth RM330 million, (iii) Unity Capital with a carrying value of RM315 million and (iv) cash of RM82 million.
4. In September, 2012, UBG sold Putrajaya Perdana to Cendana Destini Sdn Bhd for RM240 million (a discount of RM440 million). It also sold Loh & Loh to Selesa Produktif  Sdn Bhd for RM260 million (a discount of RM70 million).
5. It wrote down the cash and investment totalling RM397 million to RM200 million.
6. Cendana Destini and Selesa Produktif  were set up by the same secretarial services company (B&M Consultancy Services Sdn Bhd) which also set up other companies that Jho Low owned. These include Javace Sdn Bhd, Majestic Masterpiece Sdn Bhd and Wynton Private Equity Sdn Bhd. All five companies have registered offices at the Petronas Twin Towers and they have the same company secretary Lim Poh Seng.
7. B&M Consultancy is tied to Wong & Partners, the principal  legal firm of  Jho Low and 1MDB.
8. The buyers of Putrajaya Perdana and Loh & Loh made a gain of RM510 million at the expense of UBG. Tabung Haji subsequently bought a 30% stake in Putrajaya Perdana in 2014 for an undisclosed sum.
9. In 2014, Javace and UBG were wound up and Javace wrote off its entire investment in UBG after paying the RM700 million bank loan.
10. The impairment of RM750 million taken by Javace is the same amount as the US$260 million of 1MDB’s cash from the murabaha notes issued by PetroSaudi.  The impairment allowed the de-linking of 1MDB’s money with gains enjoyed by the new shareholders of Putrajaya Perdana and Loh & Loh. Who are these people?
Note from the publisher:
We have in this report, which is possibly the last on this subject, laid out all the key facts about what happened during the three-year business ties between 1MDB and PetroSaudi International — especially what happened to the US$1.83 billion of real cash invested by 1MDB.
Our report is based on evidence corroborated by documents that include bank transfers and statements. There is no space to publish everything and, indeed, some material cannot be published.
We will now be handing over these printed documents and the hard disk that contains them to the investigators. We will assist the investigators in any way we can to get to the bottom of what had happened.
We have a duty to find and report the truth. Our reports on 1MDB had exposed  how a group of individuals — Malaysians and foreigners — schemed a multi-billion ringgit fraud against the people of Malaysia.
How can the work that we have done be deemed as a political conspiracy?
money_involving_fd200715To see an enlarged version, right click on the chart above and open it in a new tab or window.
This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on July 20, 2015.
(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on July 21, 2015 at 09:10PM.)

Friday, June 26, 2015

No Difference! - We Prove How The Allegations Of "Tampering" Are Lies

26 Jun 2015

What proof have such eager accusers been able to find?
What proof have such eager accusers been able to find?
Sarawak Report has closely researched the extremely serious and libellous allegations, which claim documents relating to our coverage the PetroSaudi 1MDB joint venture were “tampered” and “distorted” in order to “creatively alter” the truth.
We can now prove that these allegations are demonstrably untrue, by examining the evidence on which they were based.
So, our message to those who  have accused us is check your facts before you sound off your accusations and start to worry about libel suits, if you have defamed us or an innocent man who is now in jail.We can confirm that there is zero evidence brought forward so far to substantiate the claims of “distortion” made over the past 48 hours by the New Straits Times and taken up by certain media, bloggers and UMNO politicians.
Indeed, the little evidence that has been provided by these parties can be shown to confirm the exact opposite, which is that there has been no tampering of documents.
Even so, people who could also have made the very same checks have falsely alleged that Sarawak Report and the Edge newspaper lied and deliberately misled readers with “distorted” information about 1MDB’s missing billions.
Most notoriously the Home Minister Zahid Hamidi has claimed to the press that this allegation proved that our reports were “intentionally spinning” and that facts had been “twisted”. As a result he threatened to “charge the perpetrators.”:
“We believe that (the perpetrators) must be fully responsible for any action (that will be taken) resulting from the false reporting or intentional spinning (of facts),” he said.
Yet we can show in precise detail how these comments can be proved to be entirely untrue.

Examine the evidence!

Behind the allegations is PetroSaudi, which is an involved party with a strong interest in discrediting our information
Behind the allegations is PetroSaudi, which is an involved party with a strong interest in discrediting our information
Our proof has been obtained by examining the evidence on which the company PetroSaudi, which is behind the allegations, based its claims.
PetroSaudi is itself under investigation for its role as a partner in the joint venture with 1MDB, from which billions are now scandalously missing.
This biased party was clearly a driving force at the centre of a highly orchestrated attempt this week to discredit some of the evidence that has been used to expose wrong doings by the joint venture in our reports.
Thus is was that on Tuesday staff from the UMNO owned newspaper New Straits Times were transported to Bangkok, in order to photograph the staged arrest of an alleged PetroSaudi whistleblower, whom they claimed was the source of millions of emails that have provided Sarawak Report information about siphoning of billions of ringgit from 1MDB.
Showcase arrest - but what does the evidence add up to?
Showcase arrest – but what does the evidence add up to?
This was a former Director of the company, whom PSI falsely labelled as an “IT expert”.
Indeed, it was PSI who had lodged the series of denunciations to the Thai police, which formed the basis of the charges that led to his arrest and detention. PetroSaudi have accused their former colleague of taking their data and “distorting” it, supposedly in order to “extort” and “blackmail” the company – a crime PSI has claimed took place in Thailand.
So, it was hardly in the capacity of a neutral party that PetroSaudi offered the NST an interview with their ‘expert’ interviewee for the story.
This turned out to be an unnamed employee of the UK based “cyber intelligence” firm, Protection Group International, who had allegedly examined the documents uploaded onto the web by Sarawak Report.
Ready for hire - but did PGI really make the claims quoted?
Ready for hire – but did PGI really make the claims quoted?
It was a series of astonishing “quotes” from this anonymous spokesman from PGI, which provided the bedrock for all the subsequent allegations in the Malaysian media, designed to discredit the evidence in Sarawak Report.
The PGI “expert” reportedly told NSI:
“”Our investigation is still ongoing, but it is clear that we are looking at a case of large-scale data theft, and our analysis substantiates that Justo is the source of the data published on Sarawak Report. “For example, when we looked into a PowerPoint file that was on one of the Sarawak Report’s blogs, we found evidence in the metadata of that file that it had been handled by a certain “xavierj” in 2013; two years after Justo left PetroSaudi, and four years after the file had originally been created by a law firm that advised PetroSaudi. “It is also clear that the stolen data sets are incomplete, and underwent an editing process after they were removed from PetroSaudi’s systems, and before they were published on the Internet. There are many inconsistencies between the published data and the data which still exists on files within PetroSaudi relating to that period of time. Simply put, it is incomplete data, creatively selected and edited to fit a desired narrative. “These cases are all too familiar and we have unfortunately dealt with so many of them; where a greedy or malicious employee removes confidential data and threatens to publish it, or has it published, for personal gain – financial or otherwise. Published data then invariably goes through selective editing, and not infrequently plain forgery, in an attempt to up the ante and create the most damaging story possible. “This case is an almost textbook match to that profile. PetroSaudi, like many companies, individuals or even governments that we have seen before them, and no doubt will continue to see after them, will suffer unfair scrutiny caused by a misinformed online onslaught. In this case, what started out as a simple story of personal gain by a former employee, became a story of politically-motivated allegations through the use of irresponsible online blogs.
[News Straits Times]
Put short, the blatant allegation by the unnamed PGI spokesman is that they have proved that a power point document downloaded from our site was a tampered version of the original, altered with the deliberate intention of distorting the truth.
Why did New Straits Times not publish the evidence?
This all begs the question as to why the NST has never bothered to substantiate such a grave and libellous charge by showing their readers the actual evidence?
As Sarawak Report pointed out yesterday, we corroborate our claims, so why can’t they?
The reason turns out to be that it is startlingly easy to show that the claim is completely untrue.
The one item of evidence identified by our accusers was a power point presentation made available on our site where the so-called ‘metadata’ indicates it was opened and then “saved” by Justo in 2013.
We have identified that document as the joint venture structure power point presentation uploaded into our first expose on 1MDB.
The 6 stage power point presentation that NST claim was "tampered with" and falsified by Justo
The 6 stage power point presentation that NST claims was “tampered with” and falsified by Justo
This power point was created for PetroSaudi by the legal firm White & Case, in order to show how their client planned to facilitate the siphoning of US$700 million out of the joint venture on the very first day.
The six slide presentation sets out a “joint structure plan” which allows for the repayment by 1MDB (using Malaysian public funds) of a manufactured “loan” allegedly owed to PetrSaudi’s own parent company.
(Web version) POWER-POINT-2-Petro-Saudi-JV-Structure-Steps-Plan-3
A simple examination of the so-called “meta data” identifying this document from our original report does indeed show that it was opened by Xavier Justo (‘xavierj’) on January 17th 2013.
The meta data information that can be simply obtained by scanning the document uploaded by Sarawak Report
The meta data information that can be simply obtained by scanning the document uploaded by Sarawak Report
However, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that Justo tampered with or changed the original documents – merely that he opened and copied them.
This is what the slide of the current structure looks like on our site.
Slide 1 of the presentation which shows the planned joint venture structure devised originally by White & Case on 22nd September 2009 (see bottom right)
Slide 1 of the presentation which shows the planned joint venture structure devised originally by White & Case on 2ist September 2009 (see bottom right)

The evidence

So, how can we show there was no tampering?  We can do this, because like PetroSaudi themselves we too have all the versions of this document from our copy of their own server material.
Home Minister Zahid Hamidi went public immediately to threaten the media on the basis of these biased and false accusations
Home Minister Zahid Hamidi went public immediately to threaten the media on the basis of these biased and false accusations
There are in fact a number of versions of the power point amongst the millions of documents obtained from PetroSaudi by Sarawak Report.  This includes the original document circulated by the company, which bears virtually no difference at all to the one we published, which PSI must perfectly well know.
In fact, the exact history of the document (and the meta data) shows that only one minor modification was ever made to this power point presentation.
This was a change that was made on very next day after the original was circulated and it was a change made by the original creators of the document, who were the lawyers from White & Case (‘WC users’).
This change merely added the name of a Jersey company which was incorporated a few hours after they created the power point on September 21st 2009.
White & Case circulated the update with an explanatory email and this updated version of 22nd September 2009 is identical to the one uploaded onto Sarawak Report, which PGI allegedly claimed had been changed and distorted.

History of the power point

Original version:
So, let’s examine the evidence visually through the three stages in the history of the power point, so that everyone can quite clearly evaluate the merit of PetroSaudi’s serious allegations of tampering and our denials.
The original version of the power point was circulated on 21st September 2009 and can be accessed on this link:
(original) Petro Saudi – JV Structure Steps Plan
The meta data which can be accessed from this computer file shows that it was created by WC Users (White & Case) on 21st September and modified the next day:
The original meta data
The original meta data
It can be seen that the slides in this original power point dated 21st September do not yet contain the name of the planned Jersey Company belonging to PetroSaudi.
No name so far for the Jersey company on the version sent out on Sept 21st
No name so far for the Jersey company on the version sent out on Sept 21st

The modified version

It was the very next day that White & Case sent round its modified version with the name of the Jersey company added.  This was attached to an explanatory email from the lead lawyer on the White & Case team, Timothy Buckland (who became a Director of PetroSaudi shortly after):
Helpful email to explain the modification next day on 22nd Sept 2009
Helpful email to explain the modification next day on 22nd Sept 2009
The modified power point attached to this email includes the advertised addition of the name of the Jersey company:
(Name of jersey company included) Petro Saudi – JV Structure Steps Plan
Likewise, the meta data on this document shows that this modification was created by White & Case on 22nd Sept 2009:
the meta data for the modified version
the meta data for the modified version by ‘WC users’ with Jersey company now added

Spot the difference!

Sarawak Report now refers readers back to the final version (above) of the power point which was uploaded into our report.  This version of the power point did indeed contain the meta data showing that it had been ‘saved’ by ‘xavier’ in 2013.
But the power point itself has been completely unchanged.
Indeed, we challenge readers to go through the six slides minutely and compare them with the six slides of the White & Case (‘WC users) modified version of September 22nd.
Here again is that final power point which we originally published:
(Web version) POWER-POINT-2-Petro-Saudi-JV-Structure-Steps-Plan-3
And here again is the modified one of 22nd September, which had been updated by White & Case themselves:
(Name of jersey company included) Petro Saudi – JV Structure Steps Plan
Can any of our readers spot any difference whatsoever between these two versions of the same power point?

What “tampering”?

Since there is no tampering or changes to be found we confirm that the allegations which have been put about by PetroSaudi and published unquestioningly by New Straits Times, plainly without checking the evidence, are completely untrue.
All the evidence that we have is also plainly available to PetroSaudi. Therefore, we can add that they deliberately and maliciously lied when they claimed their former employee had tampered and altered the document.
In which case the “experts” hired from PGI were either misquoted or they have too libellously exaggerated the significance of their findings to suit the requirements of PetroSaudi, who had hired PGI to undermine the evidence of their involvement in a multi-billion ringgit fraud.
Indeed, The Sunday Times have also published an article based on these documents, putting details in some of the documents to Jho Low, 1MDB and PetroSaudi.
There were no claims by any of these parties in the responses published by the newspaper that the documents referred to had been altered or tampered
Sarawak Report will be demanding satisfaction over these false allegations of “tampering”.
We suggest these misrepresentations are added to the list of potentially criminal activities by PetroSaudi, whose false charges on this point currently number amongst the allegations that have landed a former colleague, a Swiss national, in a jail in Bangkok.

Source: Sarawak Report

Share

Join us on Facebook