Goldman Sachs prejudiced by MACC’s bid for documents, says lawyer
PETALING JAYA: The handing over of privileged documents to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) would cause Goldman Sachs substantial harm in relation to a settlement agreement entered with the federal government three years ago.
It also risks prejudicing the New York-based investment bank’s position in an ongoing arbitration dispute with Putrajaya, a lawyer said.
H Prem Ramachandran, representing Goldman Sachs, said the High Court must consider these factors when adjudicating on a criminal motion filed by the MACC to obtain documents from lawyer Chetan Jethwani and his law firm, Chetan & Co.
“The proposed intervener (Goldman Sachs) asserts legal privilege in the subject documents and, therefore, has a direct interest in the outcome of the motion,” Prem said in an affidavit filed to support the bank’s application to intervene in the proceedings.
Three years ago, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay US$3.9 billion to settle a criminal probe into the bank’s role in the US$6.5 billion 1MDB bond issue scandal.
However, the deal has been mired in disputes.
Last month, the bank filed for arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.
Prem said the MACC’s motion only made bare allegations of serious criminal offences purportedly involving Goldman Sachs.
“The proposed intervener strongly denies any wrongdoing or impropriety,” he said, adding that Goldman Sachs should be allowed to participate in the proceedings and be heard by the court.
FMT understands MACC intends to oppose the intervener application and will file an affidavit in reply by next week.
On Monday, Goldman Sachs filed the intervener application to be joined in the MACC’s criminal motion seeking a court order compelling the two lawyers and their legal firms to hand over documents relating to a settlement between the government and the bank over the bond issue.
Justice Jamil Hussin will hear Goldman Sachs’s leave application on Jan 8 next year.
On Oct 11, MACC filed two motions. One application was brought against lawyer Rosli Dahlan and his firm, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS), who acted as legal adviser to 1MDB and was involved in negotiations that led to the settlement agreement inked with Goldman Sachs on Aug 18, 2020.
The other is against Chetan and his law firm, which represented Goldman Sachs.
The MACC wants both law firms to provide documents in connection with the settlement between the bank and the government over the bond issue.
It said both lawyers had refused to allow its officers to search for documents during “visits” on Oct 6 as they claimed these were privileged communication between client and solicitor.
They also claimed that MACC must obtain an order from the High Court under Section 46(2) of the MACC Act, read together with Section 126(1) of the Evidence Act, to compel disclosure.
However, MACC denies the applicability of the provisions in the circumstances of the case.
Desain Rumah Kabin
Rumah Kabin Kontena
Harga Rumah Kabin
Kos Rumah Kontena
Rumah Kabin 2 Tingkat
Rumah Kabin Panas
Rumah Kabin Murah
Sewa Rumah Kabin
Heavy Duty Cabin
Light Duty Cabin
Source