Did Najib’s lawyers send the most pathetic legal letter to WSJ?

We came across this news from an unverified source. But for the sake of entertainment, let’s just humour this piece of news and see what it entails.

It seems that the Prime Minister last night had instructed his lawyers to send a letter of demand to Wall Street Journal.

But it was preceded by a press release by the lawyers which basically detailing out the difficulty of this legal matter. They ironed out a couple of problems before they will decide what kind of action they will take.

What this means, the press release is begging the public to understand that this matter takes time, and the exercise could possibly be a waste of time. Political-wise, they just want to buy some time for their client. To show that some action is being taken, despite some allegations that their client do not have the courage to actually do anything.

Below is the press release:

PRESS RELEASE

A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib. Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak, to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.

Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to several facts and companies which are vaguely described. Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB, however contents of the article refers to indirect transactions where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies. A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.

This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal http://www.wsj.com . Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing, for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.

Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.

Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.

They actually want to know if WSJ is saying that IPIC, Tanore, SRC and Ihsan Perdana are conspiring against Najib Razak. Well, if money went through those companies’ accounts before it end up in the PM’s bank accounts, then will the lawyers sue those companies? Maybe they should just personally ask those companies since the PM are friends with the people in those companies! Mind-boggling.

Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosed.  This in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required.

Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.

Can’t the lawyers just ask those companies if they really conspired against the PM? This press release is getting ridiculous. By the way, in the actual letter to WSJ below, the lawyers did not even ask WSJ about this. Maybe they forgot to put it in.

The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers.

This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.

The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ on the imputations that are made. Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained, we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.

Yours faithfully,

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK 

WAN AZMIR BIN WAN MAJID

We are actually amazed that the lawyers would even issue such press release. It really reflects on their incompetency of the whole matter. But of course, incompetency breeds more incompetencies as the letter of demand below shows:

The letter from Najib’s lawyers to Wall Street Journal:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY SIMON CLARK AND TOM WRIGHT IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL CONCERNING YAB DATO’ SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK ENTITLED “MALAYSIA LEADER’S ACCOUNTS PROBED” PUBLISHED ON 2ND JULY 2015 AND “SCANDAL IN MALAYSIA” PUBLISHED ON 6TH JULY 2015  (“ THE ARTICLES”)

We act for the Right Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his personal capacity.

We refer to the Articles dated 2nd July 2015 and 6th July 2015 in your Wall Street Journal which, we state, contains a plethora of convoluted, scurrilous and vague allegations against our client.

What exactly are vague allegations? Is it an allegation or not? Would it be the same with a little bit pregnant but not pregnant? An allegation is an allegation. You cannot sue someone with a vague allegation. How could a vague allegation be scurrilous?

In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?

Now they want WSJ to confirm if the USD700 million was misappropriated by Najib Razak. WSJ can just easily tell them to just ask their Client since the money was banked in into his account. The WSJ article did state that money was channeled into his bank accounts but they do not know what happened to it, or how it was used. It’s laughable to ask for confirmation because it shows that the lawyers did not read those articles thoroughly. 

We are instructed to procure your position because the Articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of “the original source of the money and what happened to the money” whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the Articles create a clear impression that our Client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Precisely as their article had said, that WSJ is unsure as to where the money came from and what happened to it. We can predict what WSJ would have replied regarding their position; that they have sighted the documents and that huge sums of money have been transferred into the PM’s personal bank accounts (which the PM never denied). The lawyers just wanted WSJ to confirm and say that Najib had swindled the money, which WSJ definitely will reply – “Go ask your client if indeed he misappropriated it, the money wasn’t transferred into our accounts!”. The lawyers really do not have anything more concrete than this to go by.

In the circumstance and in the interests of our Client, we would expect a Newspaper of your international standing and reputation to state unequivocally and with clarity as to whether it is your contention that our Client misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad. You will no doubt appreciate the seriousness of the allegations made against our Client in the said Articles and this confirmation is sought to enable us to advise our Client on the appropriate legal recourse he can take to seek redress in relation to the publication of these Articles.

Why should WSJ state anything other than what they had published in their articles? Only when WSJ chose to state that yes, Najib misappropriated the money, they will take legal action.

Maybe the lawyers need to discern that the allegations WSJ made is – nearly USD700 million was pumped in into Najib Razak’s accounts. That is all. The most ironic thing  is, the lawyers did not demand WSJ to explain this, because by now all sundry know that the PM never deny that the money was definitely in his accounts.

We demand a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof and please let us know whether you have appointed solicitors in Malaysia to accept service of legal proceedings on your behalf and on behalf of the reporters who wrote the Articles in the event that legal proceeding become necessary.

Basically the lawyers demand WSJ to confess something they never alleged so that Najib Razak can show the world he is doing something. This letter is a farce, made by a farcical team of lawyers who could only concoct a lousy, pathetic letter just to get some laughs from the whole world. WSJ does not even have to reply, because Najib’s lawyers really have nothing to sue them about. 

We hereby reserve all our Client’s rights in this matter.

If this is the gold standard in the administration, no wonder there is not much hope for an intelligent leadership. Please tell us this letter wasn’t actually sent to WSJ. It will really be embarrassing for the country if it did. Thank you.

 

You might also want to read:

1) Why the public do not believe the Prime Minister’s denial

2) Did Petrosaudi swindle 1MDB and steal our money?

3) The chronology of 1MDB’s suspicious joint venture

4) Bekerja keras melindungi penyelewengan 1MDB

5) Penyelewengan ketara 1MDB