High Court to decide on Aug 12 if Rosmah Mansor can stay RM67.5 million payment to Global Royalty jeweller
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today fixed Aug 12 to deliver its decision on Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s application for a stay of the RM67.5 million payment to Lebanon-based jeweller Global Royalty Trading SAL over the loss of 43 pieces of jewellery.
Judicial Commissioner Marianne Antoinette Ghani set the date after hearing submissions from Rosmah’s counsel, M. Reza Rahim, and Global Royalty’s counsel, R. Venothani, who appeared via Zoom.
“I am inclined to reserve judgment in this matter. Perhaps we can get another date within about a week’s time,” Marianne said before fixing the date.
On June 10, the High Court ordered the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to pay RM67.5 million to Global Royalty within one month after finding her liable for the missing pieces said to have been in her custody.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Rosmah filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal on June 12, seeking a stay of execution of the said decision pending her appeal.
On March 29, 2023, Global Royalty filed a lawsuit against Rosmah, alleging she falsely claimed that 44 pieces of jewellery, including diamond necklaces, bracelets and tiaras, sent to her by the company’s agent had been seized by the Malaysian authorities under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
The company claimed that only one of the 44 pieces of jewellery was retained by the police, while the remaining 43 pieces were not in their custody.
Global Royalty further asserted that Rosmah had shifted the responsibility to the Malaysian government when, in fact, the jewellery had gone missing.
Earlier, Reza submitted that there were special circumstances warranting a stay of execution pending the appeal and that there was no necessity for the judgment sum to be paid into a stakeholder account.
He said Global Royalty is a foreign entity based in Lebanon, which is not listed in the First Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA).
“The defendant contends that, according to the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Golden Plus (supra), if the applicant can demonstrate that the recipient of the payment is a foreign entity with no presence or assets in Malaysia and is not listed in the First Schedule to REJA, then that would constitute special circumstances. That is a non-issue,” he said.
The lawyer said his client doubted she would be able to recover the money from Global Royalty if her appeal succeeded.
“The plaintiff operates its business in Beirut, Lebanon, and there is no possible way for us to check its financial strength (for possible repayment),” he said.
Reza further submitted that his client only has one bank account containing about RM100,000, while all of her other assets were frozen under an injunction by the 1Malaysia Development Berhad lawsuit in 2024.
Meanwhile, Venothani submitted that the defendant had failed to establish any special circumstances warranting a stay of execution.
She said there was no evidence before the court that the company was insolvent, unable to repay the judgment sum if the appeal succeeded, or likely to dissipate the judgment sum.
“There is no evidence that the plaintiff would be unable or unwilling to make restitution. Again, the defendant has not produced any evidence that the plaintiff would be unable or unwilling to repay the judgment sum,” she added.
