1MDB said that it was shocked that a hitherto reputable publisher such as the WSJ would make use of clearly confidential information in its reporting. “We refer specifically to the WSJ confirming it has reviewed a ‘transcript of the proceedings’, from a parliamentary committee probing 1MDB, of which the only possible source is the PAC hearings on 1MDB.”
The Standing Orders of the Malaysian Parliament very clearly states that “the evidence taken before any Select Committee and any documents presented to such Committee shall not be published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person, before the Committee has presented its Report to the House”, pointed out the company in the statement.
“The actions by WSJ are a potential breach of Malaysian law by a supposedly respectable foreign publication.”
“We are further concerned as to who involved in the PAC hearings may have leaked this transcript, which is clearly an attempt to prejudice the PAC investigations and deny 1MDB its right to due process as provided for by the laws of Malaysia.”
The statement headlined, 1MDB Stands by Its Audited Accounts, does not state the year when these audited financial statements were submitted. It was not immediately clear whether the company and WSJ were talking about the same things as the audited statements are not confidential. The company’ referred to purportedly confidential information published by WSJ.
1MDB was commenting on the WSJ report mentioning USD1.4 billion of payments made by the company. “We note that the WSJ does not name its source or provide any proof of the unproven allegations it is making, thereby seriously discrediting its sensationalist story,” said the statement.
“1MDB cannot speak on behalf of Aabar Investments or International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) nor can we comment on the accounting arrangements of third parties.”
1MDB said in the statement that it can firstly confirm that its audited financial statements clearly describe the amount and purpose of payments, which for the avoidance of doubt, was structured as a deposit (i.e. a financial asset belonging to 1MDB and not an expense to 1MDB).
Secondly, based on those payments mentioned in Point 1, the company can confirm that IPIC did provide and continues to provide, guarantees for the principal and interest of 2 x USD1.75 billion bonds issued by 1MDB, with a total principal and interest amount of approximately USD5.5 billion.
Thirdly, it can confirm that 1MDB auditors, Deloitte, made specific and detailed enquiries on these payments prior to signing off on the 1MDB audited accounts.
Fourthly, Deloitte has strongly defended its methodology and audit process of 1MDB at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings, a bipartisan select committee of the Malaysian Parliament.
“Accordingly, WSJ was wrong to state “it isn’t clear what happened to the funds”, said the company, at least not from a 1MDB perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment