1MDB scandal: Malaysian authorities claim US$65 million siphoned from fund followed ‘clear trajectory’ from former PM Najib Razak’s bank account

Najib stands accused of playing a key role in the 1MDB scandal and faces more than 40 charges of corruption

Most of the recipients of funds were allegedly branches of the former ruling party, which Najib led

Reading Time:2 minutes

Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak arrives at Kuala Lumpur High Court. Photo: AP

Published: 1:22pm, 21 Jun 2019Updated: 11:20pm, 21 Jun 2019

As the trial of disgraced former prime minister Najib Razak continues, Malaysian authorities have intensified efforts to recover funds siphoned from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fund at the centre of the global corruption scandal.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on Friday said it had begun legal action to recover 270 million ringgit (US$65 million) in 1MDB funds disbursed to 41 individuals and entities from Najib’s personal bank account, which it described as “a clear trajectory” implicating the former prime minister.

According to MACC chief Latheefa Koya, most of the recipients were branches of the former ruling party, the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), which Najib led until his shock election defeat in March 2018.

Najib stands accused of playing a key role in the 1MDB scandal and faces more than 40 charges of corruption.

“Money disbursed to various Umno divisions totalled 212 million [ringgit],” Latheefa told reporters, adding that 2 million ringgit had already been surrendered.

Respondents named in the forfeiture suit include former minister Hasan Malek, Najib’s political counsel Bustari Yusof, a host of Umno divisions and leaders, and several corporate entities such as luxe jewel company Habib Jewels and leading textile retailer Jakel.

Latheefa said the government “wanted to be practical and get the money as soon as possible”, stipulating that under Malaysian law funds can be recovered without charging individuals.

“As far as the law is concerned with unlawful activity, as long as the person who received money did not take steps to find out where it came from, they are subject to the forfeiture process,” she said. “You can’t give the defence of being shocked or surprised.”