KUALA LUMPUR — A police investigator, Rajagopal Ramadass, told the High Court today that his investigation revealed four individuals responsible for the alleged misappropriation of USD 1.367 billion (MYR 6.06 billion) from 1MDB.
Rajagopal, the 13th witness and former head of the Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) at Bukit Aman, named them as former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, former CFO Azmi Tahir, former senior lawyer Jasmine Loo, and Terrence Geh, who is currently a fugitive.
Shahrol Azral, Azmi, and Jasmine testified against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) prosecution team.
According to a statement from the law firm Tetuan Shafee & Co, Rajagopal was tasked with investigating allegations of embezzlement within 1MDB following a report made by former Umno politician Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan on December 12, 2014.
He stated that the initial transfer of USD 700 million to Good Star Limited, a company beneficially owned by Low Taek Jho, was made by Casey Tang under the instruction of 1MDB CEO Shahrol Azral.
Rajagopal also expressed his suspicion about Shahrol only seeing the “Loan Agreement” with PetroSaudi International Limited for the first time when it was presented by the police during his testimony recording.
The loan agreement was allegedly used to justify the transfer of USD 700 million from 1MDB investments to another entity that was not disclosed to the 1MDB board of directors. Rajagopal will continue his testimony next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, 1MDB chairman of the board Tan Sri Che Lodin Lok Kamaruddin maintained his testimony throughout the proceedings, stating that there was no “top-down” approach practiced at 1MDB, contradicting the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, especially Shahrol Azral.
Che Lodin stated that he was never a proxy for Najib and did not have the former prime minister’s phone number.
He also stated that his appointments to the positions at the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT) and Boustead Holdings were not made by Najib but by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Che Lodin also rejected the notion that Najib’s approval always preceded the board of directors’ decisions.
Like any other company, Che Lodin said, the board of directors needs shareholder approval for any action, and this is a requirement under the Companies Act.
Che Lodin also denied the theory that Najib wanted to terminate KPMG’s services as 1MDB’s auditor.
Instead, he said, the issue between KPMG and the company had been discussed for a long time before their services were terminated by mutual agreement.
According to Che Lodin, Najib had met with KPMG representatives to resolve the impasse, but it was unsuccessful.
He added that the issue regarding the valuation of 1MDB subsidiary, Brazen Sky Limited, by KPMG was eventually easily resolved by its successor, another leading audit firm, Messrs Deloitte Kassim Chan.
He said that each audit firm has different valuation methods, and in KPMG’s case, they stuck to their valuation approach even though the company faced difficulties in providing the requested documents.
Regarding Najib’s role in 1MDB, Che Lodin said there was no confusion among company management regarding his three roles: chairman of the advisory board (CBOA), prime minister, and shareholder representative (Minister of Finance Incorporated, MOF Inc.).
The 1MDB board of directors, he said, always adhered to corporate governance procedures in accordance with the Companies Act, particularly under Section 132C and Section 147(6), which require shareholder approval for large asset acquisitions and disposals.
He explained that board meeting minutes and shareholder resolutions confirm that when approval was required, Najib signed it in his capacity as representative of MOF Inc. and 1MDB shareholder, not as prime minister or chairman of the advisory board under Article 117 or Article 93 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A).
He emphasised that the prosecution’s argument that certain approvals by Najib were based on Article 117 contradicted the board’s strict adherence to legal requirements.
Che Lodin confirmed that Article 117 was never used because there were no elements in the article that the board considered applicable.
This, he said, further reinforces that all major decisions were made within the legal framework of the Companies Act without relying on Article 117 of the M&A or Najib’s position as chairman of the advisory board. — March 5, 2025