‘Expert’ mum on Sarawak Report query on ‘tampering’
Cyber-security firm Protection Group International (PGI) cannot reveal anything without agreement of its client PetroSaudi International (PSI)
(Free Malaysia Today) – Protection Group International (PGI), an international cyber-security firm at the centre of a growing storm following the arrest of a former PetroSaudi International (PSI) director, Xavier Andre Justo, 49, in Bangkok has apparently given a non-answer to The Sarawak Report on reporting by the New Straits Times from the Thai capital on the arrest and related matters.
According to The Sarawak Report, PGI has responded by saying they cannot say whether or not they made certain statements to the New Straits Times without getting permission from their clients – read PetroSaudi International – who, according to the website, are themselves under several investigations regarding the disappearance of millions of ringgit from 1MDB.
So, asks the website, how is the government (Malaysia) to rely on alleged statements from PGI, when the firm was not prepared to confirm whether or not they made those statements without permission from the interested party.
In short, PGI is not prepared to publicly go on record and confirm that any of its employees made certain remarks to NST.
The brief response from “Becky” at PGI reads: “Thank you for your enquiry, please be advised we take client confidentiality very seriously and do not reveal any details about the work we do for any client, without their agreement”.
Earlier, last weekend, The Sarawak Report’s London lawyers sent an urgent letter via email to the “cyber intelligence” firm hired by the company PetroSaudi International (PSI) and quoted in the New Straits Times.
They asked for confirmation on the remarks attributed to them in two articles by the New Straits Timeslast week, on their “exclusive” reporting on the arrest of Xavier Andre Justo in Thailand.
The email from the lawyers asked for confirmation in return on three issues:
Firstly, whether the quote highlighted in red was a wholly accurate and unedited quotation given by a member of its staff; if it is not, they were asked to confirm the precise respects in which the quote was inaccurate and/or has been edited and provide full details of any omitted text.
Secondly, the identity of the “expert from PGI” who gave the quote referred to if such a quote was given.
Thirdly, whether the firm considers the wording set out in blue to be a wholly accurate summary of its investigations; if it is not, they were asked to confirm the precise respects in which it was inaccurate.
The letter, signed by Reed Smith LLP London, briefly goes:
