1MDB failed to detail items allegedly purchased with 1MDB funds - Rosmah

This was stated in her defence statement, filed yesterday in response to the suit filed last May 9 by the government-owned strategic development and investment company and 10 others, including five of its subsidiaries.

Rosmah said she was also not a fiduciary or appointee to any of the plaintiffs and did not have any knowledge regarding the management or administration of all the plaintiffs.

"This clearly shows that the suit is premature, frivolous and only intended to put pressure on me, in addition to being mala fide (malicious)," she said.

Citing a High Court decision made on Nov 14, 2022, she said it clearly proved that not all the jewellery, handbags and other luxury that were confiscated from her were bought using the 1MDB funds.

This followed High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin's decision to dismiss the prosecution's application to forfeit 2,435 pieces of jewellery, seven luxury watches and 29 designer handbags worth RM80 million that were confiscated from a premises owned by Obyu Holdings Sdn Bhd, which were allegedly owned by Najib and Rosmah.

The items were confiscated by the police at Pavilion Residences here on May 17, 2018.

In his judgement, Muhammad Jamil said the plaintiff failed to prove that all the confiscated items were obtained through the misappropriation of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds.

According to Rosmah, the plaintiffs are bound by the High Court's decision.

"The (first) plaintiff, which was a wholly owned government entity at that time, acted through the Attorney General's Chamber (AGC) to deprive me of the rights to items in my possession, but the AGC acted to return some of my jewellery on the basis that it had nothing to do with the plaintiff.

"On Aug 22, 2019, a notice was published in the Federal Government gazette summoning third parties who have an interest in the confiscated property to appear in court to show why the property cannot be confiscated. The plaintiffs failed to appear to express any objections," she said.

Rosmah also denied that Shabnam Naraindas Daswani was her agent or proxy.

The suit named 1MDB as the first plaintiff, while its five subsidiaries, namely 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited; 1MDB Energy Limited; 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited; Global Diversified Investment Company Limited; and SRC International Sdn Bhd were the second to the sixth plaintiffs.

The other five plaintiffs are Affinity Equity International Partners Limited; Alsen Chance Holdings Limited; Blackrock Commodities (Global) Limited; Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited; and Brightstone Jewellery Limited.

They named Rosmah and another woman, Shabnam Naraindas Daswani (also known as Natasha Mirpuri), as the first and second defendants.

The plaintiffs contended that the luxury items, such as jewellery, watches, and handbags, were acquired or obtained by Rosmah or the second defendant not with Rosmah's personal funds, but rather with funds misappropriated from the companies, which were channelled through various offshore entities before being disbursed to 48 different vendors in 14 countries.

The vendors are from the British Virgin Islands (one), Hong Kong (nine), India (four), Indonesia (two), Italy (three), Lebanon (three), Mauritius (one), Panama (one), Singapura (one), Thailand (two), United Arab Emirates (seven), Turkiye (two), United Kingdom (two) and the United States (seven). The locations of three other vendors were unknown.

Therefore, among other claims, all the companies are demanding that Rosmah pay USD346,010,489 or such other amount as the court may deem appropriate.

They also seek court declarations, including one asserting that the first to sixth plaintiffs hold rightful ownership of the luxury items, currently purported to be in Rosmah's possession.

-- BERNAMA