Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 1 of 11

JHO LOW (/)

Legal Documents
On this page, you can review legal filings and statements that demonstrate the real
position behind the attempts that have been made to reach a guilty verdict via the
media.

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 2 of 11

1. The US Department of Justice Civil Forfeiture

Complaints
Between June 2016 and July 2017, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
filed 30 civil forfeiture actions with nearly identical complaints in the Central District
of California, seeking the forfeiture of assets allegedly traceable to funds purportedly
misappropriated from 1MDB. Following the filings of motions to dismiss by various
Claimant property-owners, the DOJ sought — and was granted over the objection of
the property owners — an indefinite stay of the cases.

The stay means that these cases were halted before any evidence was offered to support
these allegations, and before any party had a chance to respond. These unproven
allegations have been repeated thousands of times around the world as proven facts,
which they are not.

A. CLAIMANT LOW FAMILY’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE

COMPLAINT – 21 DECEMBER 2016

"The Government provides sparse allegations regarding the alleged particular criminal acts
that are the essential predicate to transforming an otherwise lawful set of transfers into an
unlawful scheme. In addition, the Government provides effectively no basis at all for why a
complaint concerning the forfeiture of this asset which is the product of purported crimes in
Malaysia can be heard in the Central District of California."

The Low Family filed a motion to dismiss a number of the civil forfeiture actions. In
brief, the motion to dismiss argued that the California Court lacked jurisdiction over
the case and, as such, that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The
Low Family further argued that the United States Department of Justice failed to
adequately demonstrate that any “specified unlawful activity” had occurred, and had
therefore failed to satisfy its claims of money laundering.

For the complete document, click here (/s/The-Familys-Motion-to-Dismiss-the-

Complaint.pdf).

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 3 of 11

B. CLAIMANT TRUSTEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS – 15 MAY 2017

"...the Government claims that it can avoid the statutory limitations on the Court’s
jurisdiction by affixing a vague ‘conspiracy’ label to all of the allegations in the
Complaint... [t]he Government cannot cure the glaring jurisdictional defects in these cases
by lumping together, in a single bloated Complaint, allegations against assets that do not
have any connection to this District with allegations against assets that do.”

A number of Claimant Trustees filed substantially similar motions to dismiss the civil
forfeiture actions, arguing that a number of “out of state” assets sought by the United
States Department of Justice are not sufficiently linked to the Central District of
California, the venue where the case was brought. As such, the Trustees contend that
the California Court lacks jurisdiction over the assets, that venue was not proper before
the California Court, and therefore the cases should be dismissed.

For the complete document, click here (/s/The-Trustees-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf).

C. QENTAS HOLDINGS LTD MOTION TO DISMISS – 10 FEBRUARY

2017

“[D]espite its length, the Complaint lacks basic and essential detail. Most fundamentally,
the Complaint fails to identify who committed the crimes that allegedly give rise to
forfeiture . . . [and] the Complaint certainly never makes allegations sufficient to conclude
that anyone misappropriated money from 1MDB with the requisite scienter, and fails to
allege other elements of the underlying offenses as well. Moreover, the Complaint makes
clear that any alleged offenses were committed entirely abroad, without the sufficient nexus
to the United States required to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.”

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 4 of 11

Claimant Qentas Holdings Limited filed a motion to dismiss the United States
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) civil forfeiture complaint. The motion highlights the
Complaint’s inadequacies, including that it fails to (1) identify the supposed
conspirators for alleged crimes, (2) identify the parties it purports were wilfully misled
or defrauded, (3) allege a connection between the property and purported unlawful
activity, (4) plead a violation of foreign law, and (5) plead the necessary and requisite
intent under the principle of scienter. The Claimant further argues that the DOJ’s
Complaint represents an unjustifiable investigative power by the United States over
other countries that encroaches upon their foreign sovereignty.

For the complete Motion to Dismiss document, click here (/s/2017-02-10-5380-Dkt-

35-Notice-of-motion-and-motion-to-Dismiss-filed-by.pdf). For Exhibits A-G (court
filings and press releases in support of Claimant’s motion) click here (/s/2017-02-10-
5380-Dkt-35-1-Exhibit-A-B.pdf), and here. (/s/2017-02-10-5380-Dkt-35-2-Exhibit-
C-G.pdf)

D. DECLARATION OF ALI AL HASHIMI – 13 FEBRUARY 2017

“The English version of Article 5 suffers from not less than two critically-flawed
translations”

This declaration from Ali Al Hashimi, an Emirati litigator experienced in UAE law,
was filed in support of Claimant 912 North Hillcrest Road (BH), LLC’s motion to
dismiss the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) civil forfeiture complaint. In
his declaration, Mr. Hashimi demonstrates that the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) incorrectly interpreted and mistranslated key phrases of UAE law. Mr.
Hashimi explains that the DOJ misinterpreted the UAE Penal Code, and the entities

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 5 of 11

and people the DOJ alleged to be public officials under the Penal Code are not actually
public officials. As such, the DOJ’s allegations of violations of foreign (UAE) law lack
merit.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2017-02-13-5380-Dkt-39-Declaration-of-

Ali-Al-Hashimi-In-Sup-Notice.pdf).

E. PARK LAUREL MOTION TO DISMISS – 10 FEBRUARY 2017

“Although the Complaint is long and detailed in many ways, nothing that might
conceivably make the New York Property forfeitable happened in this district. As a result,
the Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for improper
venue”.

Claimant Park Laurel Acquisition LLC’s motion to dismiss focuses on the Central
District of California’s lack of proper venue and subject matter jurisdiction. The
property alleged to be subject to forfeiture in this case is located in New York, rather
than California, and none of the acts purportedly giving rise to forfeiture (i.e. the
alleged underlying criminal conduct) occurred in California. Thus, the motion
requested dismissal, or, in the alternative, a transfer of the action to New York.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2017-02-10-5371Dkt-46-Motion-to-

Dismiss-for-Lack-of-Jurisdiction.pdf).

F. CLAIMANT TAREK OBAID’S MOTION TO DISMISS – 11 OCTOBER

2017

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 6 of 11

”[T]he Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish the basic elements of a civil
forfeiture case: that the [assets] constitute or are derived from proceeds traceable to specified
unlawful activity or that they were involved in a money laundering transaction in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 or 1957, or in a money laundering conspiracy.”

Claimant Tarek Obaid filed a motion to dismiss the United States Department of
Justice’s (DOJ) civil forfeiture complaint against shares of stock in Palantir
Technologies. The motion to dismiss argued that the DOJ failed to allege an
underlying scheme to defraud or theft of funds, noting that transfers between 1MDB
and Good Star Limited were done legitimately, in accordance with a binding Joint
Venture Agreement, that was understood and agreed to by both 1MDB and
PetroSaudi, themselves knowledgeable and sophisticated parties to the agreement. The
motion to dismiss also noted that the USD 700 million transfer from 1MDB to Good
Star was, in fact, a loan repayment—since part of 1MDB’s contributions to the joint
venture were in the form of debt—and that both 1MDB and PetroSaudi understood
and agreed to the transfer's legitimate purpose and destination.

For the complete document, click here (/s/Obaids-motion-to-dismiss.pdf).

2. Verdict of the South Jakarta District Court

regarding the seizure of the yacht M/Y
Equanimity – 17 April 2018
On April 17, 2018, the South Jakarta District Court held that the seizure of the yacht
“M/Y Equanimity” by the Indonesian National Police (INP), undertaken at the request
of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), was invalid and legally baseless, and
ordered the yacht returned to its owner, Equanimity (Cayman) Ltd.

For the complete document, click here (/s/The-Indonesian-Verdict.pdf).

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 7 of 11

3. Statement of Malaysian Attorney General on

their decision to close Bank Negara Malaysia’s
investigation into 1MDB - 13 October 2015
“The officials of 1MDB at all material times i.e. during the process of obtaining the
permissions had complied with the directions given [by Bank Negara Malaysia], hence the
permissions/approvals granted.”

The Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia (AGC) released a statement in regards

to the closure of an investigation by Bank Negara Malaysia, the Central Bank of
Malaysia, into whether misrepresentations had been made to the bank regarding
transfers from 1MDB. The AGC concluded that, at all times, 1MDB officials
complied with Bank Negara’s directions, furnished all required information, and that
there were no offenses committed by 1MDB with respect to representations made to
the bank.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2015-10-13-Statement-of-Malaysian-

AG.pdf).

4. Statement of Malaysian Attorney General in

relation to the investigation by MACC into SRC
International and RM2.6 billion – 26 January
2016

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 8 of 11

“MACC itself admitted that based on their investigation, there is no evidence from the
witnesses that could show that YAB PM [Razak] had committed any act of corrupt
practice…. I, as the Public Prosecutor, am satisfied that no criminal offence has been
committed by YAB PM in relation to the three investigation papers.”

The Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia (AGC) released a statement regarding

the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigations into SRC
International, a former subsidiary of 1MDB. After a review of the MACC’s
investigation papers and witness statements, the AGC concluded that the USD 681
million transferred into former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s personal account
between March 2013 and April 2013 was a “personal donation . . . from the Saudi
royal family.” The MACC conducted a thorough investigation and had personally met
with, and recorded statements from, numerous witnesses, including the donor of the
funds. As such, the AGC determined that no criminal offense had been committed
under either the MACC Act of 2009 or the Malaysian Penal Code, and therefore
declared the MACC’s investigation closed.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2016-01-26-Statement-of-Malaysian-

Attorney-General.pdf).

5. Statement of Malaysian Attorney General in

response to 2016 DoJ Civil Forfeiture actions –
21 July 2016
“There has been no evidence from any investigation conducted by any law enforcement
agencies in various jurisdictions shows that money has been misappropriated from 1MDB”

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 9 of 11

The Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia (AGC) released a statement in response

to the United States Department of Justice’s filing of 16 civil forfeiture actions against
assets allegedly linked to funds misappropriated from 1MDB. The AGC noted that
“[t]o date the Attorney General’s Chambers has yet to receive any request from the US
DOJ to obtain any information or evidence.” The AGC further emphasized that
“there have been no criminal charges preferred against any individuals for the offence
of misappropriation of funds from 1MDB.”

For the complete document, click here (/s/2016-07-20-Statement-of-Malaysian-

AG.PDF).

6. Public Accounts Committee Report – 7 April

2016
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a bipartisan standing committee comprised of
members of both Barisan Nasional (the then-ruling coalition) and of the opposition
parties, including members now a part of Pakatan Haripan (the now-ruling coalition),
released a report summarizing its nine-month investigation of 1MDB. Following ten
separate hearings featuring dozens of witnesses, the PAC found no evidence of criminal
wrongdoing with respect to former Prime Minister Najib Razak and 1MDB, and
further concluded that all 1MDB funds had been accounted for. Although the PAC
identified some weaknesses in 1MDB’s management, it concluded that these
weaknesses were not criminal and recommended a number of steps that could be taken
to strengthen 1MDB’s procedures and corporate governance.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2016-04-15-PAC-Report.pdf).

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 10 of 11

7. Statement of Malaysian Attorney General in

response to 2017 DoJ Civil Forfeiture actions –
16 June 2017
“1MDB is a Malaysian company and has been the subject of multiple investigations within
Malaysia, including by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Committee, Auditor General and
bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee. After review, we found that no crime was
committed”

In response to 14 further civil forfeiture actions filed by the United States Department
of Justice against assets allegedly linked to 1MDB, the Attorney General’s Chambers of
Malaysia (AGC) announced that it “would like to express frustration that yet again
AGC was not informed or altered by DOJ of this action.” In addition, the AGC again
publicly affirmed that “there has been no evidence from any investigation conducted
by law enforcement agencies in various jurisdictions that shows that monies were
misappropriated from 1MDB.” The AGC further noted that 1MDB had been the
subject of multiple investigations and that “no crime was committed”.

For the complete document, click here (/s/2017-06-16-Statement-of-Malaysian-

Attorney-General-on-DOJ-Civil-Suit.pdf).

(https://plus.google.com/116025519571176899360)
(https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jho-
(https://twitter.com/jho_low)
(http://www.linkedin.com/in/jholow)

This website was created on behalf of Mr. Low Taek Jho (“Jho Low”), through his
legal counsel, to provide information to the public

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018
Jho Low | Legal Documents Page 11 of 11

©2018 Jho Low • All Rights Reserved • Terms of Use (/privacy-policy)

http://www.jho-low.com/legal-documents/ 19/9/2018