.png)
KUALA LUMPUR – The Securities Commission’s (SC) latest revelation on their investigations into Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Tan Sri Azam Baki leaves a trail of questions, rather than answers.
Given that Azam has openly and publicly stated the purchase of shares was performed by his brother using his account, this has resulted in further questions about Datuk Nasir Baki’s involvement.
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet took to Twitter after the SC’s press statement, making reference to the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (Sicda), and pointed out the importance of determining the “beneficial owner” in this case.
Under Sicda, beneficial owners in relation to deposited securities are defined as “the ultimate owner of the deposited securities who is the person who is entitled to all rights, benefits, powers, and privileges and is subject to all liabilities, duties and obligations in respect of, or arising from, the deposited securities, and does not include a nominee of any description”.
Furthermore, following Section 25(4) of the act, securities accounts must be in the name of the beneficial owner of the deposited securities or the authorised nominee.
“The sting of section 25(4) is that the account must be in the name of the beneficial owner.
“So who ultimately pockets the shares – Azam or his brother?” Lim tweeted.
Come on, SC.
— Lim Wei Jiet (@limweijiet) January 19, 2022
The sting of Sec 25(4) is that the acc must be in name of the BENEFICIAL OWNER.
So who ultimately pockets the shares (i.e. beneficial owner) - AB or his bro?
1. If bro, AB infringes Sec 25(4)
2. If AB, then AB was lying when he said bro bought shares using his acc https://t.co/drZeQBwiGh pic.twitter.com/Yry86FbPNh
If Nasir turns out to be the beneficial owner, Lim said, Azam could be found in contravention of Section 25(4).
On the other hand, Lim said, if Azam is indeed the beneficial owner, he could have lied when he made the statement suggesting that the shares were purchased for Nasir.
Meanwhile, Subang MP Wong Chen also chimed in on the matter to question the evidence analysed by the SC.
According to the SC’s statement today, the regulatory authority said they made final findings after gathering independent evidence.
Wong asked if “independent evidence” meant that the SC had interviewed Azam during the course of their investigations.
“These words (independent evidence) seem to suggest that the SC did not interview Azam. Or did they?” Wong posted on Facebook.
He also asked if the SC is aware of Nasir’s potential involvement.
The PKR lawmaker further said that Azam's confession that he was a nominee for his brother was very much already known by the public, and suggested that the SC is oblivious to the matter.
“I implore the SC to give us more details and answer a simple question; did the SC interview Azam to arrive at the decision that Azam did not breach Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act?” Wong said.
Earlier today, before the SC’s statement was issued, Wong in an interview with BFM Radio suggested that the SC may have certain evidence already at hand.
Wong says that Section 24(5) must be read with subsections (5) and (6), meaning Azam would have to make a written declaration to the SC if he is a beneficial owner or authorised nominee.
“This is a written declaration and the SC must have this declaration on record.
“If found guilty of misleading the SC, the punishment includes a RM3 million fine, 10 years’ jail, or both.
“This is a serious matter, and the law aims to stop market manipulation, money laundering, and parties acting in concert,” Wong said.
Furthermore, the PKR lawmaker said that the SC also has access to trading records, and would be able to determine what was bought or sold by Azam and at what price, including if he indeed transferred the shares to his brother.
“This is not about Azam. We have to promote confidence to domestic and international investors.
“The way things are done could have damaging implications,” Wong said. – The Vibes, January 19, 2022
