Jho Low is not guilty
Umar Mukhtar
Unless it is proven that Jho Low committed a specific fraudulent act vis-a-vis 1MDB, and a criminal intent is clearly established, he is free to continue grovelling at Paris Hilton.
Anything other than that, no matter how bad, like stealing, criminal breach of trust, cheating and interfering, involved some degree of complicity, negligence or stupidity of 1MDB’s management and shareholders.
Jho Low spoke to Euromoney, and soon the chickens will be coming home to roost. One party will blame the other and the party that thinks his tracks are covered or ‘protected by default’ will fire the first salvo.
The truth is, nothing of that nature can happen without involving the three parties, namely the cunning schemer-instigator,
Let’s see who sings first. The probability since we need hard evidence, so only management will end up being blamed for neglect. Sack them to upstairs! The Auditor General will be instrumental to establishing this. Not more than that.
In the absence of a publicised Terms Of Reference, their Audit Report will predictability contain:-
1) a review of previous public audits and highlighting controversial parts,
2) some comments of some losses due to management lapses discovered by the AG,
3) observations of how these could possibly happen and future safeguards,
4) a further recommendation for an independent forensic audit by specialists, which the AG do not have, if the clients feel that it is necessary to establish criminal acts in the losses discovered by the Report, and then the perfunctory formulation of a more effective Standard Operating Procedure to avoid such lapses in the future.
That will take another at least three months, after a perusal by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committe who will probably recommend a forensic audit. Then the police will work the case to establish criminal intent.
The Attorney-General will then evaluate whether to prosecute or not. It will take years, baby, if we live long enough to hear the verdict. Someone can be remanded for investigations, if the police wish like in the Sedition cases. But money speaks loudly, it can buy good lawyers.
The forensic audit can identify the modus operandi used by the perpetrator but it will stop short of producing incriminating evidence for successful prosecution of the suspected perpetrator. However, the role of management in cluelessly facilitating these losses can be established.
Can you put the management in jail? Nah, short of criminal negligence, intent is so hard to prove. Especially if the management is truly clueless and has been lulled by first-class treatment all around by the perpetrator.
So what’s new? You really expect the thief to leave a trail? The thing is, you can show proof that the house has been broken into but that is different from proving who did it.
So how did the unholy trinity play their roles wittingly or unwittingly?
At the unlikely risk of breaching some Act or other, though I don’t see how this is going to incite people to riot or remove the government of the day by way other than a democratic election, I put forth how these things are normally done.
No accusations, no innuendos, no bad faith, just plain and sincere sharing of 30 years of work experience In this field, to help Malaysians appreciate the difficulty of the tasks at hand.
Here goes.
Simply, a cunning well-connected schemer saw an opportunity in the loot lying around whose nominee owners are greedy and/or dumb or both. He proposed to them an easy money-making scheme from the trust loot, to be manned by morons. They agreed. The morons are employed with over-generous compensation packages.
Money is borrowed which collatered the loot of which nominees are just trustees to. The business is all about the borrowing of money. When the company is flush with borrowed cash, steal it. As simple as that. There are a hundred ways to do this.
But in most cases you need compliance of trustees, custodians and management. In some cases they are also part of the thieving gang, and sometimes compliance from management can be coerced, especially if they are not only morons but also gutless.
These managers range from not knowing what a Power of Attorney is, to being scared shit of someone. A call from that someone will make them shit in their pants or a pat on the back from that someone is orgasmic.
Every time the moron tries to do his job, the phone call comes in. He complies. He comforts himself that this alternative he takes will take care of his long-term interests, after all the trustees are also his employers and nominee shareholders, and they are in support of the whatever.
Once you have such a set-up, the actual stealing is easy. The methodology makes good copy but it’s not worth our time. To a muckraker it enhances the value of his detective work. It’s all stealing, pure and simple. Leave that to the forensic guys.
If I am asked which is the crucial part of the scheme? My answer is the phone calls. That’s the key, the combination that turn the loot in the safe to lie around in the streets. You see, in this business the schemes are simple since time immemorial.
Why break the safe if you can have the safe combination with just simple ploys, normally a few goodies here and there preferably things and events which make him feel actualised? The trick is your instincts have to be able to spot greed, neediness on one hand and stupidity, ambition on the other.
That is why companies have safeguards written in their corporate procedures. Still, directors and shareholders do steal from the company they are in charge of. SOPs are de jure rules but in hybrid set-ups where things are murky, strong personalities make the de facto and ad hoc rules. Public trusteeship require more stringent rules not less. Business expediencies are no excuse to ride roughshod with company assets.
Is Jho Lo the perpetrator? He is not guilty by law. You may try to prove it circumstantially after you identify the caller and if management sings. What are the odds for that? UMNO Youth said 1MDB is a management thing. Hmm, I wonder who manages 1MDB and how accountable is he.
During our time, the safeguards were just YM Tun Raja Mohar Badiozaman, Tun Ismail Ali, YM Dato Raja Alias, Dato Rustam Hadi, Tan Sri Taib Andak and the like. “Rules are rules, young man!” they hollered at Board meetings. And what they say goes. Ah, how we miss these honourable men.
Nowadays, the shareholder/trustee and managers sign without reading or looking at documents. I didn’t say that. Jho Low implied that to Euromoney.
