KUALA LUMPUR: For former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Wednesday’s court decision was undoubtedly another painful setback.

But it was not the end.

After the High Court rejected his application to stay the execution of the 15-year sentence and RM11.4 billion fine in the 1MDB case, his lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah emerged from court visibly disappointed — describing the decision as one that had left the defence “very disappointed” and, indeed, “shocked”.

Yet beneath the disappointment was something else: determination.

Because for Najib and his legal team, the question now is not simply what happened in the High Court.

It is what happens next.

Shafee confirmed that the defence will file a fresh application for a stay of execution at the Court of Appeal after obtaining the full grounds of the High Court’s decision.

And that distinction matters.

Najib’s substantive appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by Sequerah has already been filed at the Court of Appeal. He lodged his notice of appeal on 29 December 2025, shortly after being sentenced on 26 December. What the defence is now seeking is a stay of execution pending that appeal.

It Was A Stay, Not The End Of The Appeal

Najib was not asking the High Court to overturn the 1MDB conviction or the sentence imposed by Sequerah.

He was asking for the execution of that sentence to be stayed while the legal challenge continues.

That distinction matters.

A stay would not have erased the conviction or overturned the sentence. It would simply have paused its execution while Najib pursued his appeal.

The High Court, however, found that Najib had failed to satisfy the special-circumstances test required to justify a stay.

Justice Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin gave significant weight to the gravity of the offences and public-interest considerations, and also rejected the defence’s arguments based on Najib’s medical condition.

That was where the defence fundamentally disagreed with the court.

Shafee argued that public interest should be viewed differently when the issue before the court was whether execution should be stayed.

“Public interest is when you consider how to punish it, not when it is a question of stay,” he said.

That argument will now be taken to the Court of Appeal.

Why The Defence Is So Disappointed

There was another point that clearly troubled Shafee.

He questioned the treatment of Najib as a repeat offender, pointing out that the prosecution itself had submitted that Najib was not a repeat offender.

Yet the judge did not accept that position.

Shafee argued that the offences in the SRC and 1MDB cases occurred during broadly the same period and questioned why Najib should be treated as a repeat offender in the circumstances.

For the defence, these are not minor technicalities.

They go to the reasoning behind the decision to refuse the stay.

And there is another important part of the story that may easily be overlooked.

The defence had deliberately chosen not to seek a stay immediately after Sequerah delivered the 1MDB judgment in December 2025.

According to Shafee’s submissions, Najib was then already serving his SRC sentence, and the defence wanted to preserve the possibility that the two sentences could run concurrently if the appellate court ultimately ruled in Najib’s favour on that issue.

The decision not to seek a stay at that time, Shafee argued, was expressly premised on Najib retaining the right to apply for a stay later, depending on subsequent developments.

The situation changed after the conditional pardon and the prospect of house arrest.

The 1MDB sentence, which is due to begin after Najib completes his existing SRC sentence, suddenly became much more immediate in practical terms.

That is why the defence is fighting for a stay now.

Stay First

Shafee was clear that the main appeal could take years.

And that, from the defence’s perspective, is precisely why a stay matters.

“We are going to the Court of Appeal to file a similar application,” he said.

The substantive appeal is already there.

The new battle is over whether the 1MDB sentence should be put on hold while that appeal is being heard.

For now, Shafee’s strategy can perhaps be summed up in two words:

“Stay first.”

And Then There Is Home

While one door has closed for Najib, another appears to be opening.

And this is perhaps the most human part of Wednesday’s developments.

Shafee confirmed that Najib has now received the official order relating to his house arrest, together with an attachment setting out its terms and conditions.

But the details cannot be disclosed.

According to Shafee, Najib has been instructed by the Prisons Department not to reveal the contents because the information is intended for his own use and disclosure could lead to public speculation.

One important detail, however, has been confirmed.

The house-arrest location is Najib’s own home at Langgak Duta, where he will be able to stay with his family.

The arrangement relates to the remainder of his existing SRC sentence, which was reduced to six years under the earlier pardon and is due to run until 23 August 2028.

The conditional pardon granted in September allows him to serve that remainder under house arrest, subject to the RM50 million payment condition.

But the High Court’s rejection of the 1MDB stay does not, in itself, cancel the separate house-arrest arrangement.

Shafee confirmed that the two matters remain distinct.

Two Legal Battles, Two Very Different Paths

This is where the story becomes more complicated than the headline of a rejected stay application might suggest.

There are now two separate legal tracks.

The first is the 1MDB case, where Najib has suffered a setback in his bid for a stay, but where his substantive appeal is already before the Court of Appeal and his lawyers will now file a fresh application seeking a stay.

The second is the SRC sentence and house-arrest arrangement, where the mechanism for Najib to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence at home has moved forward.

The two should not be conflated.

Indeed, the fact that Najib has received the house-arrest order and its accompanying documentation is significant in its own right.

For the first time, there is greater clarity about what the arrangement means in practical terms: when the conditions are fulfilled, the former prime minister will be able to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence at the home where his family lives.

And yet the future beyond 2028 remains tied to the 1MDB case.

As Shafee explained, if Najib ultimately does not obtain a stay of the 1MDB sentence, he could still face that sentence after the SRC term ends in 2028.

So Wednesday’s ruling did not simply produce a “yes” or “no” outcome for Najib’s future.

It produced another layer of uncertainty.

The Human Side Of The Legal Battle

For someone who has been behind bars since August 2022, the prospect of returning home is about more than legal technicalities.

It means waking up in his own home.

It means being with his family.

It means a very different kind of confinement from prison, even though it remains a form of detention with conditions attached.

And that prospect now exists alongside another battle — one that could determine what happens after 2028.

That is why the disappointment expressed by Shafee matters.

The stay application was, in practical terms, about buying time while the substantive appeal runs its course.

The High Court has said no.

The defence believes it should have said yes.

And now it will ask the Court of Appeal to decide whether the 1MDB sentence should remain on hold while that larger legal battle continues.

The Fight Moves On

For Najib, Wednesday was therefore neither a final victory nor the end of the road.

The immediate hope that the 1MDB sentence could be stayed by the High Court has been dashed.

But the substantive appeal remains alive.

And the defence is preparing another application — this time before the Court of Appeal — to seek the stay it failed to secure at the High Court.

At the same time, there is the prospect of home.

Langgak Duta.

His family.

And the possibility of serving the remainder of his SRC sentence under house arrest, once the conditions of the order are fulfilled.

For Najib, one door has closed.

But another legal door is already opening.

And somewhere in between those two doors is the prospect of home — and, beyond that, another legal battle still waiting to be fought.

For now, however, the message from his legal team is simple:

Stay first.

Then, the fight continues. – NMH

The post For Najib Razak, The Fight Continues first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR: If RM30 million of the RM42 million in dispute was subsequently returned to SRC International, why is the company still seeking the full RM42 million from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak?

That is one of the central questions raised by Najib’s counsel Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee in his submissions before High Court judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan in the civil suit brought by SRC International Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary, Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd.

The trial in SRC International Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak (Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-340-05/2021) continues tomorrow.

Farhan’s submissions have put the spotlight on the actual movement of the RM42 million, the amount that ultimately remained with Najib, and the evidence required to establish what he knew at the material time.

RM30m that Went Back to SRC

According to the defence’s reconstruction of the banking records, RM32 million was credited into Najib’s Accounts 880 and 906 on 26 December 2014.

Three days later, RM27 million and RM5 million were paid to PBSB and PPC respectively.

But the defence says the money trail did not end there.

On 7 January 2015, RM30 million was credited back into SRC’s own Account 650.

Farhan’s submission argues that this return is reflected in SRC’s own banking records and completes a portion of the fund flow which the Plaintiffs’ own chart stops short of showing.

The defence has highlighted SRC’s “Timeline 5”, introduced during cross-examination in January, which traced the disputed funds into Najib’s accounts and subsequently showed RM27 million and RM5 million being paid out to PBSB and PPC.

But the chart, the defence says, stops at PBSB and PPC.

The defence’s amended chart adds the subsequent RM30 million payment from PBSB back to SRC, effectively closing the loop.

Why Claim RM42m when RM30m was returned?

This is where the defence’s quantum argument comes in.

Farhan argues that an award of the full RM42 million would effectively require Najib to pay SRC RM30 million which SRC had already received back.

The defence cites the principle against double recovery, arguing that any damages or other monetary relief must take into account the RM30 million already returned to SRC.

The defence therefore says that, even if the Court were to find against Najib on liability — which it does not accept — the full RM42 million cannot stand as the amount recoverable.

Its alternative position is that any award should be limited to the amount that actually remained outstanding, with credit given for the RM30 million returned to SRC. …

The Banking Record Behind the RM30m

The defence also challenges the suggestion that the RM30 million payment from PBSB to SRC cannot be connected to the earlier RM27 million transfer.

It points to PBSB’s bank statement, saying the account held only RM1,956 before the RM27 million arrived on 29 December 2014 and returned to RM1,956 after the RM30 million cheque left on 7 January 2015.

The defence argues this makes it difficult to maintain that the RM30 million came from an unrelated source.

A Civil Trial Must Stand on its Own Evidence

Another major plank of Farhan’s submissions is the distinction between the criminal proceedings against Najib and the present civil action.

The defence argues that Najib’s previous criminal conviction cannot simply be treated as proof that the elements of SRC’s civil claims have been established.

The submission points out that the criminal proceedings involved statutory presumptions and different legal tests, whereas the present action requires SRC to prove the specific elements of its civil causes of action.

The defence notes that the Plaintiffs’ own Reply states that “No equivalent presumption is relied upon in this suit” and that the criminal offence elements are not equivalent to the elements of the civil causes of action.

In other words, Farhan’s argument is that the civil case must be decided on the evidence led in this trial — not by simply importing conclusions from the earlier criminal case.

That distinction is particularly important because SRC’s civil claims include knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, misfeasance in public office and abuse of power.

What Did Najib Actually Know?

The defence has also challenged the evidence concerning Najib’s state of mind.

Farhan argues that the Plaintiffs must establish actual knowledge or conscious dishonesty, rather than relying on hindsight or the proposition that Najib ought to have asked more questions.

The defence submission stresses that suspicion is not knowledge and negligence is not dishonesty, and that the Court must examine the evidence available to Najib at the material time.

The BlackBerry Messages — and Najib’s Absence

The defence has also relied heavily on a 264-page collection of BlackBerry messages involving Jho Low, former SRC CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and AmBank banker Joanna Yu.

One point Farhan’s submission highlights is that there are no messages from Najib in the bundle.

Instead, Najib appears in the conversations as “MNR”, “PM” or “boss” — as the subject of discussions rather than a participant sending messages.

The defence says the chats are important contemporaneous evidence of how the accounts were actually operated by others.

It also points out that the Plaintiffs themselves relied on the same bundle during the trial.

The USD620m Return

The defence has further drawn attention to Najib’s instruction in July 2013 to return USD620 million, which was described in his instruction as the unutilised sum of donations and personal gifts.

The defence says the amount was voluntarily returned long before the RM42 million transactions now under scrutiny and before any allegation against Najib had arisen.

It describes the sum as roughly 48 times the RM42 million at the centre of the present suit. SRC 340 – Knowledge Element Dec…

The argument is that such conduct is relevant to assessing whether Najib could genuinely have believed that monies entering his accounts were legitimate funds rather than money belonging to SRC.

The Question Before the Court

The defence is therefore asking the Court to look beyond the headline figure of RM42 million.

Its case is that the banking evidence shows RM30 million came back to SRC, that the Plaintiffs’ own fund-flow chart does not show the complete trail, and that the evidence of what Najib actually knew must be examined independently of the earlier criminal proceedings.

For Najib, the defence submission is ultimately about three questions: where did the money go, how much actually remained with him, and what did he know at the time?

The Plaintiffs are expected to respond to these arguments when the trial continues tomorrow before Justice Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin. – NMH

The post RM42m SRC Suit: If RM30m Came Back To SRC, Why Is The Full Amount Still Being Claimed? first appeared on NMH.

For almost seven years, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor has lived with a public verdict.

On social media, she was not merely portrayed as a woman convicted of corruption. She became something much larger in the public imagination — the woman who had supposedly taken money meant for schoolchildren in rural Sarawak.

The story was repeated so often that the allegation became, for many, a fact.

Yet the criminal justice system does not operate on repetition.

It operates on evidence.

And that is why Tuesday’s decision by the Court of Appeal is significant.

The court has not acquitted Rosmah yet. It has not declared the new evidence to be true. But it has allowed fresh evidence from key prosecution witness Rayyan Radzwill Abdullah to be heard and tested before the High Court.

After seven years, that is no small development.

A Case Built Around Witnesses, Money And Attribution

One of the things that troubled me throughout the trial was the central role played by Datuk Rizal Mansor.

Rizal was initially charged alongside Rosmah before becoming a prosecution witness.

That transition inevitably made his evidence something that deserved particularly careful scrutiny.

The defence’s new evidence now raises questions about precisely that.

Rayyan says Rizal allegedly used the names of other public officials when seeking money from Jepak. More importantly, he says payment-related communications and alleged instructions were conveyed through Rizal, rather than directly from Rosmah.

That, on its own, does not prove Rizal lied.

But it raises an obvious question:

When a crucial allegation is communicated through an intermediary, how certain can we be that the intermediary was accurately conveying the instructions of the person he claimed to represent?

That question becomes even more important when the intermediary himself was once an accused person in the same case.

Did Rosmah Actually Receive The Money?

Another issue that has always troubled me is the evidence surrounding the alleged receipt of the RM1.5 million.

The public version of the story is remarkably simple: money was allegedly brought to Rosmah’s house.

But criminal cases are not decided by the simplicity of a story.

They are decided by what a witness actually saw, what he knows personally, and what he was told by somebody else.

The defence’s fresh evidence is significant here.

Rayyan now says he did not personally see Rizal point out or identify the bag to Rosmah, nor did he observe any reaction from her demonstrating knowledge of the bag. According to his present account, it was Saidi who subsequently told him about the money.

That creates a very important evidential question.

If a witness’s knowledge of an alleged payment comes not from what he personally witnessed, but from what another person subsequently told him, how much of the evidence is firsthand and how much is derivative?

That is not something that should be decided by social media.

It is precisely the kind of question that should be tested through cross-examination.

And now, because of Tuesday’s ruling, it will be.

The Courtroom Versus The Court Of Public Opinion

I was in court during the original proceedings.

I remember the atmosphere. I remember the way Rosmah was spoken about and spoken to.

There were moments when I was deeply uncomfortable with the manner in which the prosecution approached her, including the insistence that she be referred to as “OKT” — orang kena tuduh — rather than by her title, Datin Seri.

Of course, Rosmah was an accused person. There is nothing improper about calling an accused person an accused.

But there is a larger principle at stake.

The purpose of a trial is to determine whether an accused person is guilty — not to begin with the assumption that guilt has already been established.

That distinction matters enormously when the person being tried is already being condemned outside the courtroom.

What We Thought We Knew May Now Have To Be Examined

The new evidence from Rayyan goes beyond the question of whether he remembers events differently today.

He alleges that he was pressured and discouraged from disclosing matters he says he had previously conveyed during the investigation. His account is now contained in sworn material, and the defence points to an earlier affidavit from 2020 as part of the context.

The defence says this could affect the reliability of evidence that formed part of the basis for Rosmah’s conviction.

That is why Tuesday’s ruling matters.

The Court of Appeal has essentially said: these are questions that deserve to be heard.

Not accepted.

Not presumed to be true.

Heard and tested.

A Small Measure of Vindication

After seven years of being called every imaginable name, there is something quietly significant about that.

Rosmah has not been vindicated in the sense of being cleared.

Her conviction remains.

Her substantive appeal remains to be decided.

But Tuesday’s decision has given her something that every accused person should be entitled to: a proper opportunity to have potentially material evidence examined before the court.

And, importantly, that is how her lawyers themselves characterised it.

“Today justice has been served,” lead counsel Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad said outside court.

He was not suggesting that the new evidence had already been proven. On the contrary, he acknowledged that its truthfulness and reliability would have to be tested before the High Court.

“We want it to be tested. We want it to be shown to the world” that the additional evidence is credible and reliable, he said.

That distinction matters.

The defence’s press statement made essentially the same point, describing the ruling as an important opportunity for evidence which Rosmah maintains was not properly before the original trial court to now be “heard and scrutinised in open court.” After years of litigation, the statement said, she would finally have the opportunity to have these matters tested through the judicial process.

That is not an acquittal. It is not a finding that the new evidence is true.

It is something more modest — but, after seven years, still significant.

The door has been opened for the evidence to be heard and tested.

Before we decide who is guilty, before we turn allegations into memes and memes into “facts”, perhaps we should allow the evidence to speak.

After seven years, Rosmah has been given another opportunity to do just that. – NMH

The post Seven Years Of Being Judged: Why The Rosmah Ruling Matters first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR: The 1MDB civil trial has raised a question that goes beyond the individual defendants before the court: What is the responsibility of a CEO when billions are lost under his watch?

The question is particularly pertinent in the case of former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, who was not merely the company’s chief executive.

As highlighted by senior counsel GK Ganesan during cross-examination, Shahrol held three positions — managing director, CEO and Board member.

Ganesan’s central argument was that, in those roles, Shahrol had a duty to ensure that material risks were placed before the Board and that proper advice was given before major investments proceeded.

Shahrol rejected the suggestion that he had been negligent.

But the evidence raises an important corporate-governance question:

Where does the CEO’s responsibility end when the Board ultimately makes the decision?

The Serdar Field Warning

One of the clearest examples came from the proposed US$1 billion investment involving PetroSaudi International.

Kelvin Tan, who was the Director of Investments for 1MDB had written to the management in October 2009 warning that both Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan claimed rights over the Serdar Field, the asset linked to the proposed investment.

Shahrol agreed that this represented a genuine risk.

Yet the Board was not informed of the issue before the investment proceeded, according to the evidence highlighted by Ganesan.

Ganesan put it to Shahrol that, given his positions, he should have advised the Board to hold off until the ownership dispute was resolved.

That goes to the heart of the CEO’s role.

A Board can only make an informed decision based on the information placed before it.

If management knows of a material risk but the Board is not told, can responsibility simply rest with the Board for approving the transaction?

Or does responsibility also extend to the executive responsible for ensuring that the Board is properly informed?

Why Was Jho Low The Channel?

Another striking part of the testimony concerned Shahrol’s communications with the then Prime Minister.

Asked how he communicated with the Prime Minister, Shahrol said he had “alternative means” — through Jho Low (Low Taek Jho).

Ganesan pointed out that Low held no formal position in 1MDB.

He also raised the requirement for Federal Government approval for an investment of that size. Shahrol said that, to his knowledge, such approval had not been obtained.

The question is therefore not simply why Jho Low was involved.

It is why the CEO of a government-owned company relied on someone with no formal position in 1MDB to communicate with the Prime Minister on matters involving billion-dollar investments.

If a CEO believed that a matter required the Prime Minister’s attention, why was the communication not made through formal corporate and governmental channels?

Vincent Beng’s Defence Line

The same broader question of responsibility has emerged through the defence’s questioning, including that of Nur Syafinaz Vani, counsel for Vincent Beng, former Chief Investment Officer of 1MDB.

The defence has sought to distinguish between individuals who had actual authority over 1MDB’s decisions and those who were merely employees operating within the company’s management structure.

That distinction is particularly relevant to Kelvin Tan.

Ganesan established that Tan was a staff member, did not sit on the Board and was not named in either the Public Accounts Committee or National Audit Department reports.

When Ganesan asked Shahrol whether it was fair to have named Tan as the seventh defendant, Shahrol answered no.

The defence position therefore raises a simple question:

If a staff member without Board authority can be pursued for losses arising from major investment decisions, what level of responsibility should attach to those at the highest levels of management?

What Did The Law Require In 2009?

There is an important legal distinction when considering Shahrol’s responsibilities.

The PetroSaudi transaction took place in 2009. The governing statute at the time was therefore the Companies Act 1965, not the Companies Act 2016.

Under Section 131B of the Companies Act 1965, the business and affairs of a company were managed by, or under the direction of, its Board.

Section 132, as amended in 2007, required directors to exercise their powers for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interests of the company, as well as to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. Crucially, the provision’s definition of “director” included the chief executive officer.

That is significant in Shahrol’s case.

He was not merely an employee of 1MDB. He was its CEO and, as highlighted in court, also its managing director and a Board member.

There was, however, another layer specific to 1MDB.

Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association required the Prime Minister’s prior written approval for specified matters, including investments and major financial commitments.

That did not, by itself, turn the Prime Minister into 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The Board remained responsible for the company’s affairs.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether the Prime Minister had a role in approving major decisions.

It is whether 1MDB’s management and Board properly discharged their own responsibilities in preparing, evaluating and placing those decisions before the Board, and in seeking the required approval through the proper channels.

If the CEO knew of a material risk — such as the ownership dispute surrounding the Serdar Field — what was his responsibility to ensure that the Board knew about it?

And if Prime Ministerial approval was required, what was the proper corporate process for obtaining it?

Those questions go directly to CEO accountability.

Why Is Shahrol A Witness?

That brings us to the uncomfortable question surrounding Shahrol.

He has appeared as a prosecution witness in the 1MDB-Tanore criminal trial and has testified in other proceedings.

Yet he is no longer a defendant in the current US$8 billion 1MDB civil suit.

That does not, by itself, establish that he bears no civil or criminal responsibility. Nor does being a CEO automatically establish liability.

But it does raise a legitimate question:

What distinguishes a CEO who is an important witness to alleged wrongdoing from a CEO who should bear responsibility for decisions made under his management?

The answer lies in the evidence — what he knew, what he advised, what he communicated to the Board and government, what risks he escalated and whether he exercised the standard of care required of his position.

The Bigger Question for Corporate Malaysia

The 1MDB case should not create the impression that CEOs are responsible only when things go well and become mere witnesses when things go disastrously wrong.

A CEO cannot simply be a conduit between political principals, advisers and a Board.

The role carries professional responsibility.

That includes asking difficult questions, challenging questionable assumptions, ensuring that material risks reach the Board and, when necessary, advising that a transaction should not proceed.

The law applicable at the time recognised that responsibility.

The court must now determine what the evidence says about Shahrol’s own conduct.

But there is another question that deserves attention.

If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant?

The bigger question is not simply whether Shahrol should be liable.

It is how responsibility is allocated in the first place.

The 2009 legal framework placed management and corporate decision-making within the Board, while 1MDB’s Article 117 imposed an additional requirement for the Prime Minister’s prior written approval on specified matters.

That means the existence of Article 117 does not, by itself, answer the question of who was responsible for preparing, evaluating and placing investment decisions before the Board.

Nor does the fact that the Prime Minister’s approval was required necessarily mean that the CEO and directors ceased to have their own responsibilities.

And this brings the issue back to the civil suit.

If a CEO who was also managing director and Board member is not responsible for decisions made under his watch, then why was former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak named as the first defendant?

Najib was not 1MDB’s CEO.

He was not its managing director.

He was not responsible for its day-to-day management.

But he was Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and chairman of 1MDB’s Board of Advisers, and Article 117 specifically required his prior written approval for certain major matters. Those facts are central to the case and must ultimately be determined in light of the evidence.

The court will have to determine what each person knew, what each was responsible for, what was placed before the Board, what approvals were obtained and whether the conduct alleged caused the losses claimed.

But as Shahrol returns to the witness stand, the question remains:

If the CEO who ran 1MDB, the managing director who managed its affairs and the Board member who participated in its governance is not responsible for the decisions made under his watch, then why is the former prime minister — named as the first defendant — at the front of the civil claim?

That is not a question of guilt.

It is a question of corporate accountability.– NMH

The post If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant? first appeared on NMH.

Liquidator Appointed Over 29 Offshore Entities, the 1MDB Civil Trial was told

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 August 2026 – The 1MDB Civil Trial turned to the recovery and tracing of allegedly misappropriated funds today, with offshore asset recovery specialist Angela Barkhouse telling the High Court that she had been appointed liquidator for 29 offshore entities linked to the transactions under investigation.

Barkhouse, managing director of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd, is the third witness in the US$5.64 billion civil suit brought by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and its subsidiaries against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and several other defendants.

She said the various appointments were made between July 2021 and May 2025.

Among the entities identified were Lucetta Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd, TKIL Global Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi International, Aabar International Investments PJS Ltd, Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd and Platinum Global Luxury Services Ltd.

Barkhouse told the court that her analysis enabled her team to trace funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB through a complex network of offshore entities associated with parties allegedly involved in the fraud.

She said her investigations remained ongoing, with further information continuing to be obtained and analysed on behalf of the liquidated estates and claims pursued against parties alleged to have facilitated the movement or laundering of the funds.

Findings Based on Retrospective Reconciliation

An important aspect of Barkhouse’s testimony, however, was the nature of her investigation.

Under questioning, she confirmed that her findings were based on a retrospective reconciliation.

The investigation itself was conducted in 2024 and completed in 2025 – several years after the transactions in question and long after earlier investigations into 1MDB had begun.

Barkhouse explained that the figures and information used in the reconciliation had been obtained from staff within her firm, after which the information was brought together and totalled.

The distinction is important because her evidence was not based on firsthand observation of the original transactions. Rather, it involved reconstructing and reconciling information available to her team at a later stage.

Barkhouse also acknowledged that she did not have the final overall figure for the amount recovered.

Although she was involved in recovery work, she could not attest to a final consolidated recovery figure.

That prompted questions over the scope of the reconciliation – including what information was available to the team at the time and whether the exercise was intended to establish the full amount ultimately recovered or to address a more specific aspect of the liquidated estates.

The issue may become significant as the defence continues to examine the relationship between the amounts allegedly misappropriated, funds traced and sums subsequently recovered.

Shafee Puts Jho Low at the Centre of Questioning

During cross-examination, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah focused on the role of fugitive financier Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Shafee asked Barkhouse whether she had encountered Low’s name during her investigation.

She confirmed that she had.

Shafee then put to her that Jho Low lay at the centre of the controversy surrounding 1MDB and the alleged conspiracy to destroy the sovereign wealth fund.

Barkhouse responded: “Among others, yes.”

When Shafee asked whether she agreed that Jho Low was the main person behind the alleged conspiracy, however, Barkhouse said she was uncertain.

She explained that her focus was on those who had received the allegedly misappropriated funds.

That exchange is significant because it illustrates the distinction between Barkhouse’s role as a liquidator and the wider question of who ultimately bears responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.

Her mandate, as described in court, is principally concerned with identifying and pursuing assets and claims connected to the liquidated estates. Determining the overall hierarchy of responsibility for the alleged 1MDB fraud is a broader question for the court.

Tracing Funds Versus Establishing Responsibility

The distinction between tracing funds and establishing responsibility could become an important feature of the next stage of the trial.

Barkhouse’s evidence provides the plaintiffs with a detailed picture of the complex offshore network through which funds were allegedly moved.

But the existence of an offshore entity, a transfer or a recipient does not necessarily, on its own, establish who authorised a transaction, who knew about it or who was ultimately responsible for the alleged misappropriation.

That distinction is likely to be tested further during cross-examination.

It also follows the broader pattern established during the first week of the trial, when defence counsel questioned former investigator Richard Templeman about the methodology and documentary basis of his investigation.

The defence has repeatedly sought to distinguish between evidence showing where money went and evidence establishing who was responsible for sending it there.

The Recovery Question Remains

Barkhouse’s inability to confirm the final overall recovery figure also leaves open an issue that has already featured prominently in the defence’s narrative.

At a press conference last week, Shafee said approximately RM31 billion had been recovered by 1MDB and its subsidiaries – a figure exceeding the approximately RM24 billion being claimed in the civil action.

That figure was not put to Barkhouse as part of this morning’s evidence, and she did not attest to it.

Nevertheless, her testimony that she had been involved in recovery work but did not have the final consolidated recovery figure raises a question that may warrant further examination – how the various recovery exercises, liquidated estates and sums recovered fit together in determining the amount ultimately sought from the defendants.

That is particularly relevant in a civil action where the plaintiffs are seeking to recover billions of ringgit.

A More Complex Picture of the Evidence

Barkhouse’s testimony therefore adds another layer to the 1MDB Civil Trial.

On one level, the court has heard evidence of an extensive tracing exercise involving 29 offshore entities and a network spanning multiple jurisdictions.

On another, the evidence highlights the complexity of reconstructing transactions years after they occurred, with the liquidator relying on information compiled by her team and reconciling figures retrospectively.

Her evidence also stops short of identifying Jho Low as the sole person responsible for the alleged conspiracy, with Barkhouse telling the court that her focus was on recipients of allegedly misappropriated funds.

As the trial continues, the court will have to consider not only the tracing of the funds but also what the evidence establishes about the roles, knowledge and responsibilities of the various defendants.

The hearing continues tomorrow. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: The Money Trail and Questions Over Recovery first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 04 Aug – The government’s decision to pursue a RM24 billion civil claim against Datuk Seri Najib Razak has come under renewed scrutiny after the defence revealed that authorities have already recovered more than RM31 billion linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, disclosed the figure at a press conference after court proceedings on Tuesday, following the conclusion of testimony by the plaintiff’s witness, former UK investigator Richard Templeman.

Shafee said the recovery figure was disclosed during the discovery process in the civil proceedings, questioning why it had not been made public despite exceeding the amount being claimed against Najib.

According to him, the RM31 billion recovered did not include the value of remaining 1MDB assets such as Bandar Malaysia and Edra, which could further increase the total recoverable value.

“The plaintiff is claiming RM24 billion, yet documents disclosed during discovery show recoveries have already exceeded RM31 billion,” Shafee said, adding that the Treasury should explain why these figures had not been publicly disclosed.

He argued that once the recovered funds and remaining assets were taken into account, questions naturally arose over the basis and quantum of the government’s civil claim.

Templeman’s Testimony Concludes

Templeman, a former investigator engaged by UK-based law firm Kobre & Kim in relation to international asset recovery efforts involving 1MDB, completed his testimony after two days of cross-examination.

The trial will resume on Wednesday with former DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua expected to take the witness stand as the plaintiff’s next witness.

Defence Challenges ‘Top-Down’ Narrative

Reflecting on Templeman’s evidence, Shafee said the defence had successfully challenged the government’s assertion that Najib exercised complete control over 1MDB through a so-called “top-down approach”.

He said Templeman eventually accepted that the documents shown in court reflected the normal governance structure of a company, where decisions were made by the board of directors before being referred to the shareholder for approval where required.

According to Shafee, this was consistent with the governance framework of a government-linked company and did not, by itself, demonstrate that Najib directed the company’s day-to-day affairs.

The defence also referred Templeman to Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, a provision frequently cited throughout the proceedings.

Shafee said Templeman acknowledged that, based on the documents he had reviewed, he had not seen any instance where Najib exercised powers under Article 117 to override the board’s decisions.

No Documents Showing Najib Directed The 1MDB Board

Shafee further highlighted that Templeman agreed there were no documents showing Najib had directed the 1MDB board on its decisions.

He also noted that Templeman was unaware that a handwriting expert had previously testified that the signatures and handwritten notes purportedly belonging to Najib on certain 1MDB board meeting minutes were not his.

The defence further pointed out that the board meeting minutes themselves contained no record of any other attendees or participants, giving the impression that Najib was effectively “having a monologue with himself” rather than recording discussions involving other board members.

On the issue of fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, Templeman disagreed that Jho Low acted as a shadow director controlling 1MDB from outside the company. However, he accepted that there were some instances suggesting Jho Low’s involvement in the company’s affairs.

With Templeman’s evidence concluded, the trial is expected to enter a new phase with Tony Pua’s testimony when proceedings resume on Wednesday. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: With RM31 Billion Recovered, RM24 Billion Suit Questioned first appeared on NMH.

PUTRAJAYA, 30 July 2026 — The Court of Appeal is set to hear Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s applications to adduce fresh evidence in her appeal against her conviction in the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid project case on 1 September 2026.

The applications came up for case management on Thursday at 9am before Deputy Registrar Mahyudin bin Mohmad Som, who issued directions for both parties to complete the exchange of affidavits and written submissions ahead of the hearing.

Rosmah, the applicant, has filed the relevant Notices of Motion together with supporting affidavits seeking leave to introduce fresh evidence in her pending appeal. The documents have been served on the prosecution.

Rosmah Fresh Evidence Application: Court Sets Deadlines

The Court directed the prosecution, as respondent, to file its Affidavit in Reply on or before 12 August.

Rosmah will then have until 19 August to file her Affidavit in Reply, if any.

Both parties are required to file their written submissions by 26 August, followed by a pre-hearing case management on 27 August.

The applications to adduce fresh evidence are tentatively scheduled to be heard on 1 September.

Significantly, 1 September had previously been fixed as the first day of the hearing of Rosmah’s substantive appeal against her conviction and sentence.

The latest directions mean the appellate court is expected to first deal with the fresh evidence applications before the substantive appeal proceeds.

Appeal Stems From Sarawak Solar Project Case

Rosmah’s appeal arises from her conviction on 1 September 2022 on three corruption charges connected to a RM1.25 billion project to supply solar hybrid energy to 369 rural schools in Sarawak.

The charges involved allegations that Rosmah solicited RM194 million in gratification and received RM6.5 million from Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin in connection with helping the company secure the project from the Education Ministry.

High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan found Rosmah guilty on all three charges and sentenced her to 10 years’ imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, as well as imposing a total fine of RM970 million.

Rosmah has consistently challenged the conviction and sentence and filed an appeal in September 2022. Her subsequent petition of appeal set out 127 grounds challenging the High Court’s decision.

Rosmah’s Substantive Appeal Yet to Be Heard

The substantive appeal has yet to be determined by the Court of Appeal.

Its hearing had earlier been scheduled to begin on 1 July 2026, before being postponed to 1 September amid separate proceedings concerning Rosmah’s bid to disqualify the trial judge.

The latest applications introduce another issue for the appellate court to determine: whether Rosmah should be permitted to place fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal as part of her challenge to the conviction.

The nature and significance of that evidence will likely become clearer when the applications are argued before the court.

For now, the parties have until late August to complete their affidavits and submissions before returning for the pre-hearing case management on 27 August. – NMH

The post Rosmah Fresh Evidence Bid Set For 1 September Hearing first appeared on NMH.

Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini diberitahu bahawa bekas perdana menteri Najib Razak tidak mengurus secara mikro operasi SRC International atau 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi bersetuju semasa pemeriksaan semula oleh peguam bela Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah bahawa Najib tidak pernah menghubunginya untuk mengarahkan beliau memaklumkan kepada lembaga pengarah supaya meluluskan sebarang keputusan syarikat.

Tadbir urus SRC dibangkitkan

Shafee mencadangkan bahawa dalam struktur tadbir urus korporat, keputusan syarikat sepatutnya datang daripada pihak pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah sebelum dipertimbangkan oleh pemegang saham, bukannya diarahkan secara terus dari pihak atasan.

Beliau turut berhujah bahawa Najib, yang ketika itu merupakan perdana menteri dan menteri kewangan, tidak terlibat dalam pengurusan harian syarikat-syarikat tersebut.

Menurut Shafee, walaupun sebuah pejabat kecil pernah disediakan untuk Najib di 1MDB, beliau tidak pernah menggunakannya, manakala di SRC International pula tiada pejabat khas disediakan untuknya.

Peguam itu turut menekankan kelayakan profesional anggota pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah syarikat pada masa itu, termasuk Tan Sri Ismee Ismail serta beberapa tokoh korporat lain yang berpengalaman.

Shafee berkata sekiranya Najib mempunyai niat untuk menyalahgunakan kedudukannya bagi kepentingan peribadi, beliau tidak akan melantik individu berkelayakan tinggi untuk mengurus syarikat tersebut.

Asal-usul TIA

Mahkamah turut mendengar mengenai penubuhan Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), yang kemudiannya menjadi asas kepada penubuhan 1MDB.

Shafee berkata idea penubuhan TIA pada asalnya dicetuskan oleh ahli perniagaan dalam buruan Jho Low sebagai dana kekayaan berdaulat untuk negeri Terengganu.

Cadangan itu menurutnya dikemukakan kepada Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, yang dikatakan telah mengenali Jho Low lebih awal daripada Najib.

Bagaimanapun, projek tersebut kemudiannya menjadi pertikaian di peringkat kerajaan negeri sebelum akhirnya diambil alih oleh kerajaan Persekutuan dan dinamakan semula sebagai 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Perkembangan itu berlaku dalam tempoh peralihan pentadbiran daripada bekas perdana menteri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi kepada Najib.

Mahkamah turut diberitahu bahawa Shahrol mengenali Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil lebih awal melalui Wynton Pte Equity Group, sebuah entiti yang dikaitkan dengan Jho Low.

Nik Faisal kemudiannya dilantik sebagai ketua pegawai eksekutif SRC International pada 2010.

Dalam kenyataan kepada Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission sebelum ini, Nik Faisal mendakwa beliau dilantik oleh Shahrol, namun perkara itu dinafikan oleh Shahrol di mahkamah.

Nik Faisal kini dilaporkan telah lari ke luar negara dan masih belum kembali untuk memberi keterangan.

Perbicaraan sivil berhubung SRC International diteruskan dengan mahkamah meneliti aspek tadbir urus, struktur pengurusan serta proses membuat keputusan dalam syarikat tersebut dan kaitannya dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad. – NMH

Baca juga:
Keadilan Akhirnya Menang – Perjalanan Panjang Najib Berakhir Dalam Kes SRC 2.0

The post Perbicaraan SRC: Shahrol Setuju Najib Tidak Campur Tangan Urus 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR – Former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court that SRC International decisions were not micromanaged by former prime minister Najib Razak, agreeing he had never been instructed to direct the board on corporate matters.

Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court today that former prime minister Najib Razak did not micromanage the operations of SRC International or 1Malaysia Development Berhad, agreeing during re-examination that Najib had never instructed him to tell the board to approve any corporate decisions.

During questioning by defence counsel Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, Shahrol also agreed that Najib had never personally called him to direct that the board of directors approve any particular investment, transaction or corporate decision involving the two companies.

Shafee suggested that corporate governance within 1MDB and SRC required decisions to originate from management and the board of directors, rather than being imposed from the top by the shareholder or political leadership.

Governance: Shahrol Says Najib Never Directed Board Decisions

The defence also highlighted the professional credentials of the company’s leadership at the time, including board members and senior executives such as Tan Sri Ismee Ismail and other senior officials, arguing that they were highly qualified individuals entrusted with overseeing the companies’ management and governance.

Shafee also traced the origins of 1MDB, telling the court that the idea for the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) — the predecessor to 1MDB — was initially mooted by fugitive financier Jho Low.

He said the proposal was presented to Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin before the fund was eventually taken over by the federal government following disagreements at the state level and subsequently renamed 1MDB.

SRC Origins and Role of Nik Faisal Raised in Court

During the session, Shahrol confirmed that he had met Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil earlier through Winton, an entity linked to Jho Low. Nik Faisal later became chief executive officer of SRC International.

Shafee suggested that Najib had initially not known Nik Faisal and only became aware of him after his profile was presented.

Nik Faisal, who is currently a fugitive, had previously told the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that he had been appointed by Shahrol — a claim Shahrol denied during the trial.

The court will continue hearing testimony related to the management and governance of SRC International, as the civil proceedings scrutinise the roles of management, the board and shareholder representatives in the company’s decision-making process. – NMH

Also read:
Justice Finally Prevails In SRC 2.0 – Najib’s Long Wait Ends

The post SRC Trial: Shahrol Agrees Najib Did Not Micromanage 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has formally discontinued its appeal in the money-laundering (AMLA) charges involving Rosmah Mansor, according to official filings dated 9 and 11 December 2025. The Notice of Discontinuance, submitted to the Court of Appeal, resulted in the immediate vacating of the scheduled 22 December case management date, and the appeal has now been recorded as concluded under Order 73 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

The withdrawal effectively ends the prosecution’s challenge to earlier court developments relating to the AMLA matter. It closes a path that has extended across several years, involving multiple stages of hearings, administrative reviews and legal submissions. With the Notice of Discontinuance accepted by the Court, the case moves from active litigation to formal closure at the appellate level.

Finality After Years of Public Scrutiny

The AMLA proceedings against Rosmah have been among the most closely followed cases in the country, drawing significant public and media attention since the charges were first brought. Over the years, the case navigated a complex sequence of legal steps, including pre-trial applications, interlocutory decisions, and subsequent appellate processes.

The prosecution’s decision to withdraw the appeal now brings a sense of finality. With the withdrawal in effect, all administrative matters tied to the appeal have been settled, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the file is now closed.

Rosmah Reserves Response as Proceedings Conclude

Throughout the legal process, Rosmah Mansor has adhered to all court requirements while maintaining a reserved position publicly. Consistent with her approach in recent years, she has not issued any statement regarding the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the appeal.

Understandably for her, the withdrawal marks the end of another long chapter in her legal journey, which has unfolded under extensive national scrutiny. It is surely welcome news indeed, a day after her 74th birthday.

A Case That Shaped Public Discourse

The AMLA proceedings, given their duration and public profile, have formed a notable part of Malaysia’s wider legal and political conversation over the past several years. The legal community would notably describe the appeal’s conclusion as an important procedural milestone, providing closure to a matter that has remained active since a year ago. – NMH

The post Rosmah Mansor’s AMLA Case: Appeal Withdrawal Brings Finality first appeared on NMH.