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.


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.


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


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.”

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. For Exhibits A-G (court filings and press releases in support of Claimant’s motion) click here, and here.


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 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.


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.


f. Claimant Tarek Obaid’s Motion to Dismiss – 11 October 2017

”[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.


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.


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.


4. Statement of Malaysian Attorney General in relation to the investigation by MACC into SRC International and RM2.6 billion – 26 January 2016

“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.


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”

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.


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.

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.