MACC to quiz Tan Sri over highway project funds
The individual, who was recently discharged from hospital, is also being investigated for overseas asset ownership and high-stakes gambling activities involving millions of ringgit.
MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki confirmed that the Tan Sri, who is believed to be a highway concession holder, had yet to give his statement due to recent medical treatment at a private hospital.
'A statement has not yet been recorded from the Tan Sri, but I have been informed that doctors have recently allowed him to be discharged. My officers will be contacting him soon to arrange an appointment,' Azam told Astro Awani when contacted on Saturday.
He added that while the individual is a key witness in the case, MACC has already recorded statements from 45 other witnesses, some of whom have been recalled to assist further in the investigation.
'He is indeed one of the individuals we have yet to question, but we already have testimonies from other witnesses. I cannot confirm whether additional witnesses will be required after his statement,' Azam said.
According to sources, MACC had earlier obtained medical confirmation from the treating doctor regarding the Tan Sri's condition before proceeding to plan for his interview.
The investigation centres around the suspected misappropriation of sukuk bonds intended for the construction of a highway.
On June 3 last year, MACC disclosed that it had seized assets valued about RM143mil from the individual as part of the probe.
They included luxury vehicles and properties owned by the Tan Sri, both locally and abroad, including in London and Switzerland.
The seized assets comprised 14 personal bank accounts with RM4.5mil, eight company accounts with RM33mil, a luxury condominium and a parcel of land valued at RM24.5mil, nine luxury cars worth RM7.65mil, designer watches valued at around RM25mil, handbags worth RM3mil, jewellery and diamonds estimated at RM6mil and four horses valued at RM400,000.
Other seized items included high-end alcoholic beverages worth RM3mil, foreign assets estimated at over RM15mil and gambling-related activities involving about RM20mil.
A notice to declare assets has already been issued to the Tan Sri and related parties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Subscription squeeze
There was a time when entering into a contract was as simple as ABC. The company handed you a contract and you sign off if the terms were acceptable. When you wanted to end the service, you pay the current bill and that was it. But with competition getting intense, businesses have become creative by inventing the subscription contract that comes with a self-renewal clause, unless terminated with notice. And the auto-renewal clause comes with a termination penalty. As high as RM58,000 for quitting a wellness programme, as one complainant told the National Consumer Complaints Centre (NCCC). Herein lies a trap. When you try to unsubscribe from the service, it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you managed to do so, you end up paying a hefty penalty. Is this legal? Here, we come face to face with the "on the one hand and on the other hand" argument of lawyers. As a general legal principle, a contract is an agreement between parties. Were the terms made explicit to the consumer? If so, then the consumer's case ends there, except if the penalty is excessive, like the RM58,000 imposed by the wellness company. In such cases, it is best to proceed to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. Vigilance is the key. But being vigilant isn't easy in a business environment where companies push the concept of consent to the edge of the law. Complaints to the NCCC tell us that the subscription contracts need regulatory intervention. Not that Malaysia doesn't have laws. It has several, but unlike the United Kingdom, not specific to subscription contracts. Do we need one? Certainly, but first, let's look at what we already have. The Contracts Act 1950 (CA) is one of several. Subscription agreements are contracts, they clearly fall under it. The CA makes consent of the parties a critical element. Another, and perhaps more relevant, is the Consumer Protection Act (1999), which specifically addresses unfair contract terms. Astronomical penalties, either made known or hidden, are likely to be treated as such. So will deceptive auto-renewals. Finally, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). Interestingly, the CMA imposes a duty to act reasonably on all service providers. If the auto-renewals and penalties are not made known to and agreed by the consumer, then the service providers could be found to have failed in their duty to act reasonably. A point needs to be made, though. Despite scores of complaints to the NCCC, there has been no litigation on such issues. Neither have the regulators acted on the complaints, Perhaps, they are waiting for the consumers to lodge a report with them. A report from the consumer shouldn't be the only way for regulators and enforcement agencies to act. Even the police are using viral videos to launch their investigations. The regulators must go where the complaints are: consumer associations, NCCC and media reports. Malaysia needs a specific law such as the UK's Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Proper consent of the consumer, together with a cooling-off period of 14 days, is a pillar of these regulations.
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Subscription squeeze - Regulating the auto-renewal trap
THERE was a time when entering into a contract was as simple as ABC. The company handed you a contract and you sign off if the terms were acceptable. When you wanted to end the service, you pay the current bill and that was it. But with competition getting intense, businesses have become creative by inventing the subscription contract that comes with a self-renewal clause, unless terminated with notice. And the auto-renewal clause comes with a termination penalty. As high as RM58,000 for quitting a wellness programme, as one complainant told the National Consumer Complaints Centre (NCCC). Herein lies a trap. When you try to unsubscribe from the service, it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you managed to do so, you end up paying a hefty penalty. Is this legal? Here, we come face to face with the "on the one hand and on the other hand" argument of lawyers. As a general legal principle, a contract is an agreement between parties. Were the terms made explicit to the consumer? If so, then the consumer's case ends there, except if the penalty is excessive, like the RM58,000 imposed by the wellness company. In such cases, it is best to proceed to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. Vigilance is the key. But being vigilant isn't easy in a business environment where companies push the concept of consent to the edge of the law. Complaints to the NCCC tell us that the subscription contracts need regulatory intervention. Not that Malaysia doesn't have laws. It has several, but unlike the United Kingdom, not specific to subscription contracts. Do we need one? Certainly, but first, let's look at what we already have. The Contracts Act 1950 (CA) is one of several. Subscription agreements are contracts, they clearly fall under it. The CA makes consent of the parties a critical element. Another, and perhaps more relevant, is the Consumer Protection Act (1999), which specifically addresses unfair contract terms. Astronomical penalties, either made known or hidden, are likely to be treated as such. So will deceptive auto-renewals. Finally, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). Interestingly, the CMA imposes a duty to act reasonably on all service providers. If the auto-renewals and penalties are not made known to and agreed by the consumer, then the service providers could be found to have failed in their duty to act reasonably. A point needs to be made, though. Despite scores of complaints to the NCCC, there has been no litigation on such issues. Neither have the regulators acted on the complaints, Perhaps, they are waiting for the consumers to lodge a report with them. A report from the consumer shouldn't be the only way for regulators and enforcement agencies to act. Even the police are using viral videos to launch their investigations. The regulators must go where the complaints are: consumer associations, NCCC and media reports. Malaysia needs a specific law such as the UK's Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Proper consent of the consumer, together with a cooling-off period of 14 days, is a pillar of these regulations.
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Burglar nabbed after returning to crime scene to retrieve belongings
BALIK PULAU: A man who broke into a house in Batu Maung was caught after he returned to the scene to retrieve items he had left behind. The matter came to light in a viral video posted on the Facebook account "Amigos Media Viral" this afternoon. Southwest police chief Assistant Commissioner Sazalee Adam said initial investigations revealed that the suspect had entered the home through the back door while the domestic helper was outside disposing of rubbish. "Upon realising the presence of the complainant, the suspect fled the scene. "However, he later returned to the house to collect belongings he had left behind. "The complainant and several friends managed to apprehend the suspect and handed him over to members of a patrol unit on duty in Batu Maung," he said in a statement. Sazalee said the suspect had been detained and would be brought to the Balik Pulau magistrate's court tomorrow for a remand application. "Preliminary urine tests showed the suspect tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine and benzodiazepines. "The suspect also has a prior criminal record for a drug-related offence," he added. Police advised the public to ensure that all doors and windows are properly locked and that home security systems are in working condition to prevent similar incidents. The case is being investigated under Section 448 of the Penal Code for house trespass, which carries a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to RM5,000, or both.
