Elias Hj Idris
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) may have finally shed light on what happened to the US$620 million that “Malaysian Official 1” (MO1) had returned to his "donor".
In a latest civil forfeiture suit filing, the DOJ alleged that at least US$27.3 million was used to buy a 22-carat pink diamond pendant and necklace for “MO1's wife.”
It also indicated that the returned "donation" money was used by Penang born-tycoon Jho Low to purchase a US$750,000 photograph as a gift for actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
MO1 is described by the DOJ as a high-ranking government official.
In response to last year's civil forfeiture suits, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Abdul Rahman Dahlan had confirmed that MO1 was Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
Najib has denied allegations of misappropriating public funds for personal gain while Abdul Rahman (photo) said the fact Najib was not named in the DOJ filing showed that the prime minister was not a subject of investigation.
In last year's suits, the DOJ claimed that a total of US$731 million of allegedly misappropriated 1MDB funds had entered the personal accounts of MO1.
This included US$681 million transferred in March 2013, which the DOJ documents quoted the Malaysian attorney-general Mohammed Apandi Ali as saying that it was a personal donation from a member of the Saudi royal family.
The DOJ and Apandi both noted that in August 2013, US$620 million of the funds was returned.
However, the DOJ claimed the money had originated from 1MDB, and was transferred to MO1 from, and later returned to, the Singapore bank account of Tanore Corporation.

'Account was controlled by Low'
Singapore court cases on 1MDB established that the account was controlled by Low.
However, what happened to the returned US$620 million had remained a mystery until the allegations were listed in the DOJ's 251-page lawsuit yesterday.
On June 2013, two months before the sum was returned, the DOJ said Low had contacted jeweller Lorraine Schwartz, asking urgently for a diamond necklace with a "18 carrot (sic) pink heart diamond".
The next month, Schwartz travelled to Monaco with a 22-carat pink diamond, to meet Low, as well as then Aabar chief executive officer Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny, aboard a yacht.
Also on board the yacht was the wife of MO1, and her friend - dubbed by the DOJ as "Malaysian Friend".
On the yacht, the group purportedly discussed the design of the necklace that would hold the pink diamond.
According to the DOJ, Schwartz's next encounter with MO1's wife was in New York on Sept 28, to show a layout of the necklace's design.
Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor were in New York at the time for the UN general assembly. Najib addressed the assembly on Sept 28.
The DOJ claimed that the finished necklace was later delivered to "Malaysian Friend" in Hong Kong on March 7, 2014, so that it could be delivered to MO1's wife.
It is not clear if or when MO1's wife personally received the necklace.
The DOJ alleged that payment for the US$27.3 million piece of jewellery had originated from the US$620 million MO1 returned to Tanore in August 2013.
On Sept 9, 2013, US$58.85 million from the Tanore account was channelled to another account - Midhurst Trading Limited - which Singapore courts established was opened by Low under the alias of Eric Tan.
The next day, US$32.76 million was transferred from Midhurst to a DBS Singapore bank account for Blackrock, another account held nominally by Tan.
From there, two wire transfers were made to Schwartz's Bank of America accounts totalling US$27.3 million.
The DOJ noted that Low might have used Tan's email to ensure his name was not associated with the diamond's purchase records.
An email, from Tan to Schwartz's assistant, had asked for Low's name not to be stated in further emails "as he is just an introducer and not the buyer".
Besides the US$27.3 million pink diamond necklace, the DOJ also accused Low of purchasing 27 different 18-carat gold necklaces and bracelets for MO1's wife, worth a total of US$1.3 million.
The gold necklaces and bracelets were bought using funds allegedly misappropriated from a Deutsche Bank loan meant for a legitimate subsidiary of Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Co (IPIC) - but was diverted to a dubious company mimicking IPIC subsidiaries.
Meanwhile, another purchase allegedly made using the US$620 million MO1 had returned, was a photograph by Diane Arbus titled “Boy with the Toy Hand Grenade".
The U$750,000 photograph was purchased with funds allegedly channelled from the Tanore account to former 1MDB subsidiary SRC International.
The DOJ claimed that on Aug 30, 2013, three days after the US$620 million was returned, a total of US$334 million was sent from Tanore to two overseas investment firms Enterprise Emerging Market Funds (Enterprise) and Cistenique Investment Fund (Cistenique).
Then, between Sept 4 and Sept 6, 2013, a total of US$232.9 million was allegedly wired from Enterprise and Cistenique to SRC International.
The DOJ claimed that US$233.4 million was then wired from SRC International to another investment firm - Pacific Harbor Global Growth Fund.
On Sept 10, the DOJ said, US$228.7 million was transferred from Pacific Harbor to a shell company nominally controlled by Tan, dubbed Affinity Equity.
Then between Oct 28 and Oct 30, 2013, Affinity Equity transferred US$1 million to another account nominally controlled by Tan dubbed the Platinum Global account.
It was from this account that the US$750,000 for the photograph was paid for, on Nov 1, 2013.
The DOJ stated that in March 2014, Low gave the photograph to DiCaprio as a gift.
However, what happened to the rest of the US$620 million that MO1 returned is unclear.
The US$681 milllion MO1 had received has become popularly known in Malaysia as the RM2.6 billion donation.
Najib and his supporters have insisted that it was a donation from a Saudi royalty.
Elias Hj Idris
The US Department of Justice (DOJ), in its third and newest asset seizure filing announced last night, revealed a previously undisclosed phase in which more of 1MDB funds were allegedly siphoned.
The 251-page filing described this fourth part as the "Options Buyback" phase in which US$850 million was siphoned from two loans totalling US$1.225 billion.
1MDB, through its subsidiary 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, had taken the US$250 million and US$975 million loans from Deutsche Bank.
This money, like in previous phases, was partially used for the benefit of certain individuals including executives of 1MDB and Aabar Investments PJS as well Malaysian officials and their relatives.
However, a key difference, was that a significant sum was also used to "cover the hole" in 1MDB's subsidiary Brazen Sky Limited, which claimed to have US$2.318 billion worth of "fund units" in Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund (Bridge Global Fund), managed by Bridge Partners Investment Management Limited, but the DOJ said is "relatively worthless".
This was achieved by recycling the Deutsche Bank loan through a network of transactions that made it appear as if Brazen Sky was progressively redeeming the fund units for cash when they were, in fact, the same money going in circles.
Before delving into the elaborate and complex scheme in the cover-up of the fund units, it should be noted that the first DOJ filing had outlined three other phases in which 1MDB's funds were allegedly siphoned.
One of this was the Good Star phase where 1MDB had invested US$1.83 billion in a bogus joint-venture with PetroSaudi International and US$1.03 billion of this money was allegedly siphoned to Penang billionaire Jho Low's Good Star Limited.
1MDB later declared it had sold the investment and received US$2.318 billion in shares, which included a handsome US$488 million profit on its original investment.
It then invested the sum in "fund units" managed by Bridge Partners Investment Management Limited.
In reality, the "fund units" cannot be worth US$2.318 billion as at least US$1.03 billion had been siphoned and the additional US$488 million profit also did not exist, leaving the fund units being worth no more than US$800 million, if not less or any at all.
So then how did 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy, in a statement on Oct 12, 2015, announce that 1MDB had redeemed US$1.39 million of the US$2.3 billion "fund units" held by Brazen Sky Limited?

How conspirators recycled 1MDB funds

According to The DOJ, it started on Sept 5, 2014, when 1MDB drew down US$223 million out of the US$975 million loan from Deustche Bank.
1MDB misrepresented to Deutsche Bank that the loan was intended to buy back share options from Aabar Investments PJS, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC).
The money was then disbursed to Aabar Investments PJS Limited (Seychelles) (Aabar-Seychelles), a company owned by rogue Aabar official and Jho Low's associate Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny, but was made to appear like the subsidiary of IPIC.
Aabar-Seychelles then transferred US$111 million to Lambasa Global Opportunity Fund which then passed US$110 million to Bridge Global Fund.
On Sept 11, 2014, Bridge Global Fund then transferred the US$110 million to Brazen Sky, which was framed as a "redemption" but ultimately originated from 1MDB's Deustche Bank loan.
A day later, Brazen Sky transferred US$94 million of the money to 1MDB Global Investments Limited, another subsidiary of 1MDB.
"The purpose of this unnecessarily complicated funds flow was to create the appearance that fund units in the Brazen Sky Account were being redeemed for cash and being paid forward to 1MDB, thereby fraudulently disguising the fact that the fund units were illiquid and relatively worthless," the DOJ said in its filing.
On Sept 29, 2014, after Aabar-Seychelles received a second tranche totalling US$458 million from the US$975 million Deustche Bank loan, it repeated the same pattern by sending US$378 million to Lambasa which then passed US$375 million to Bridge Global which in turned allowed Brazen Sky to "redeem" the money.
On Oct 7, 2014, Brazen Sky then sent US$375 million to 1MDB Global. However, this time, 1MDB Global sent US$356 million back to Aabar-Seychelles.

This process was repeated for another five times.
"By the end of November 2014, proceeds from the first tranche of the $975 million loan had passed through the Brazen Sky account once, and proceeds of the second tranche of the loan had passed through the Brazen Sky Account six times," said the DOJ.
When this repetitive process was finally completed, it appeared as if Brazen Sky had redeemed US$1.412 billion from its "fund units".

However, 1MDB faced a headache as the fraudulently valued Brazen Sky fund units were used as collateral for the Deutsche Bank Loan, which condition included that Brazen Sky cannot transfer its money out.
However, in order to recycle the money, the conspirators had no choice but to breach the loan condition.

'1MDB duped Deutsche Bank'

The DOJ found that 1MDB's executive director of finance, described as "1MDB Officer 4", had faked documents to Deutsche Bank to convince them that no money had left Brazen Sky's account.
1MDB ultimately defaulted on the US$975 million loan, which was followed by Deutsche Bank's demanding an early repayment upon discovery of the deception in May 2015.
IPIC later came in with a US$1 billion emergency loan to help 1MDB make the loan repayment but the white knight deal had since soured and turned into an arbitration case.
Putrajaya had since sought for a settlement with IPIC and had, among others, agreed to repay the US$1 billion loan, with interest, in two tranches.
Ironically, Putrajaya had indicated that 1MDB plans to repay part of the sum using the remaining of Brazen Sky's "fund units", which it claimed is worth US$940 million but its true value remains suspect.
Apart from the Brazen Sky recycling, part of the US$975 million Deutsche Bank loan also benefitted Jho Low, Eric Tan Kim Long (Jho Low's alias) and another rogue Aabar executive Khadem Abdulla Al Qubaisi, totalling around US$29 million.
The US$975 million Deutsche Bank loan had received a letter of support from Malaysian Official 1.
"Internal Deutsche Bank records reflect that 1MDB officials opted to provide a Letter of Support signed by Malaysian Offical 1, rather than some form of guarantee by 1MDB, at least in part because a letter of support did not require Bank Negara or Cabinet approval.
"At the request of 1MDB, all references to the Letter of Support were removed from the Facility Agreement," said the DOJ.
Apart from the US$975 million loan, 1MDB also took out an earlier US$250 million loan from Deutsche Bank.
The disbursement of that loan began on May 28, 2014 and by June 3, 2014, at least US$142 million ended up in Jho Low's personal bank accounts.
Jho Low used the money to purchase a 300-foot luxury yacht.
At least US$1,277,250 of this loan also found its way into the personal bank account of Malaysian Official 1 on June 18, 2014.
Elias Hj Idris

Sebenarnya kita selalu kena tipu dengan kedai tayar. Mereka selalu keluarkan tayar yang lama untuk clearkn stok dan dijual pada harga baru. So, kalau yang nak tukar tayar tu, berhati2lah supaya kita tidak tertipu.
Berikut ialah senarai kod yang patut kita tahu tentang tayar. Semoga dapat manfaat bersama.
Sahabat semua, kita selalu tukar tayar kereta, tapi kita tidak tahu bahawa tayar itu tayar yang sudah lama dan tidak sepatutnya digunakan lagi (expired).

Info Pasal tayar kenderaan;
1. Kod Tayar Kenderaan:
Contoh 205/65/R1594H
205 = Lebar
65 = Tinggi
R = Radial
15 = Saiz / Rim
94 = Had Maksimum
H = Had Maksimum
Kelajuan 210km/jam
Lihat Abjad yang last;
S = Maksimum Had Laju
180 km/jam
T = Maksimum Had Laju
190 km/jam
U = Maksimum Had Laju
200 km/jam
V = Maksimum Had Laju
240 km/jam
Z = Maksimum Had Laju
240 km/jam
W = Maksimum Had Laju
270 km/jam
Y = Maksimum Had Laju
300 km/jam

2. Setiap Tayar Ada 4 Angka
Tercatat Di Sisi Tayar.
Contoh 0514
Indeks ini menunjukkan tayar baru keluaran kilang pada minggu ke-5 tahun 2014.

Tempoh penggunaan tayar adalah selama LIMA tahun dari tarikh tayar tersebt dikeluarkan.
Tayar baharu yang berusia lebih daripada lima tahun masih boleh digunakan, tetapi tayar telah menjadi keras sebab getah tayar sudah tamat tempoh penggunaannya (expired).

Jika anda menukar tayar yang baharu, pastikan tahun pengeluarannya ialah tahun yang terkini.
Jika membeli tayar keluaran tahun 2015, minta diskaun sebanyak 20% daripada harga asal.

Berikut ialah diskaun harga tayar berdasarkan tahun tayar yang dikeluarkan dari tahun semasa (2016);
2015 = 20%
2014 = 40%
2013 = 60%
2012 = 80%
2011 ke bawah = PERCUMA
Elias Hj Idris
No automatic alt text available.
Elias Hj Idris

Oleh: Uswatun Hasanah
Pada suatu hari, datang seorang pemuda bernama Abdullah ke sebuah pesantren di Indonesia bertujuan untuk bertemu dengan kiyai di pesantren tersebut. Maka berlakulah dialog di antara pemuda dan kiyai di ruang tamu rumah kiyaitersebut.
Pak Kiyai: Silalah duduk anak muda, siapa namamu dan dari mana asalmu?
Pemuda: Terima kasih pak kiyai. Nama saya Abdullah dan saya berasal dari Kampung Seberang.
Pak Kiyai: Jauh kamu bertandang ke sini, sudah tentu kamu punya hajat yang sangat besar. Apa hajatnya, mana tahu mungkin saya boleh menolongmu?

Pemuda tersebut diam sebentar sambil menarik nafasnya dalam-dalam.
Pemuda: Begini pak kiyai, saya datang ke sini, bertujuan ingin berbincang beberapa permasalahan dengan pak kiyai. Pendeknya, permasalahan umat Islam sekarang. Saya ingin bertanya, mengapa kiyai-kiyai di kebanyakan pesantren di Indonesia, dan tuan-tuan guru di Malaysia serta Pattani dan Asia umumnya sering kali mengajar murid-murid mereka dengan lebih suka mengambil kalam-kalam atau pandangan para ulama?

Seringkalilah juga saya mendengar mereka akan menyebut:
“Kata al-Imam al-Syafiee, kata al-Imam Ibn Athaillah al-Sakandari,kata al-Imam Syaikhul Islam Zakaria al-Ansori dan lain-lain”
Mengapa tidak terus mengambil daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah? Bukankah lebih enak kalau kita mendengar seseorang tersebut menyebutkan “Firman Allah Taala di dalam al-Quran, sabda Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam di dalam hadis itu dan ini?”

Ulama-ulama itu juga punya kesalahan dan kekurangan. Maka mereka juga tidak lari daripada melakukan kesilapan. Maka sebaiknya kita mengambil terus daripada kalam al-Ma’sum, iaitu al-Quran dan as-sunnah??

Pak Kiyai mendengar segala hujah pemuda tersebut dengan penuh perhatian. Sedikitpun beliau tidak mencelah malah memberikan peluang bagi pemuda tersebut berbicara sepuas-puasnya.
Sambil senyuman terukir di bibir pak kiyai, beliau bertanya kepada pemuda tersebut,

Pak Kiyai: Masih ada lagi apa yang ingin kamu persoalkan wahai Abdullah?
Pemuda: Setakat ini, itu saja yang ingin saya sampaikan, pak kiyai.
Pak Kiyai: Sebelum berbicara lebih lanjut, eloknya kita minum dahulu ya. Tiga perkara yang sepatutnya disegerakan, iaitu hidangan kepada tetamu, wanita yang dilamar oleh orang yang baik maka disegerakan perkahwinan mereka dan yang ketiga si mati maka perlu disegerakan urusan pengkebumiannya. Betul kan Abdullah?
Pemuda: Benar sekali Pak Kiyai .

Pak Kiyai lalu memanggil isterinya bagi menyediakan minuman pada mereka berdua. Maka beberapa ketika selepas itu minuman pun sampai di hadapan mereka.

Pak Kiyai: Silakan minum Abdullah.
Sebaik dipelawa oleh pak kiyai, maka Abdullah pun terus mengambil bekas air tersebut lalu menuangkannya perlahan-lahan ke dalam cawan yang tersedia.
Pak Kiyai terus bertanya: Abdullah, kenapa kamu tidak terus minum daripada bekasnya saja? Kenapa perlu dituang di dalam cawan?
Pemuda: pak kiyai, mana bisa saya minum terus daripada bekasnya. Bekasnya besar sekali. Maka saya tuang ke dalam cawan agar memudahkan saya minum.
Pak Kiyai: Abdullah, itulah jawapan terhadap apa yang kamu persoalkan sebentar tadi. Mengapa kami tidak mengambil terus daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah? Ia terlalu besar untuk kami terus minum daripadanya. Maka kami mengambil daripada apa yang telah dituang di dalam cawan oleh para ulama. Maka ini memudahkan bagi kami untuk mengambil dan memanfaatkannya.

Benar kamu katakan bahawa mengapa tidak terus mengambil daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah.
Cuma persoalan kembali ingin saya lontarkan kepada kamu. Adakah kamu ingin mengatakan bahawa al-Imam as-Syafie dan para ulama yang kamu sebutkan tadi mengambil hukum selain daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah? Adakah mereka mengambil daripada kitab Talmud atau Bible?

Pemuda: Sudah tentu mereka juga mengambil daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah.
Pak Kiyai: Kalau begitu, maka sumber pengambilan kita juga adalah daripada al-Quran dan as-sunnah cuma dengan kefahaman daripada para ulama.
Pak Kiyai: Satu lagi gambaran yang ingin saya terangkan kepada kamu. Saya dan kamu membaca al-Quran, al-Imam al-Syafie juga membaca al-Quran, bukan?
Pemuda: Sudah tentu pak kiyai.
Pak Kiyai: Baik, kalau kita membaca sudah tentu kita ada memahami ayat-ayat di dalam al-Quran tersebut bukan? Al-Imam as-Syafie juga memahami ayat yang kita bacakan.
Maka persoalannya, pemahaman siapa yang ingin didahulukan? Pemahaman saya dan kamu atau pemahaman al-Imam as-Syafie terhadap ayat tersebut?
Pemuda: Sudah tentu pemahaman al-Imam as-Syafie kerana beliau lebih memahami bahasa berbanding orang zaman sekarang.
Pak Kiyai: Nah, sekarang saya rasa kamu sudah jelas bukan?
Hakikatnya kita semua mengambil daripada sumber yang satu, iaitu al-Quran dan as-sunnah. Tiada seorang pun yang mengambil selain daripada keduanya.
Cuma bezanya, kita mengambil daripada pemahaman terhadap al-Quran dan as-sunnah tersebut daripada siapa? Sudah tentu kita akan mengambil daripada orang yang lebih dalam ilmu dan penguasaannya.
Ini kerana mereka lebih wara’ dan berjaga-jaga ketika mengeluarkan ilmu.
Hatta Imam as-Syafie rahimahullah yang berbangsa Arab sendiri pun tinggal di perkampungan Bani Huzail selama lebih kurang 10 tahun semata-mata  mau ingin belajar Bahasa Arab mereka yang hampir dengan fushah.
Kamu tahu Abdullah, al-Imam as-Syafie radhiyallahu anhu pernah ditanya oleh seseorang ketika mana beliau sedang menaiki keldai, berapakah kaki keldai yang Imam tunggangi?

Maka al-Imam as-Syafie turun daripada keldai dan mengira kaki keldai tersebut.
Selesai mengiranya, barulah al-Imam menjawab: “Kaki keldai yang aku tunggangi ada empat”. Orang yang bertanya tersebut berasa hairan lalu berkata “Wahai Imam, bukankah kaki keldai itu sememangnya empat, mengapa engkau tidak terus menjawabnya?”
Al-Imam as-Syafiee menjawab: “Aku bimbang, jika aku menjawabnya tanpa melihat terlebih dahulu, tiba-tiba Allah Taala hilangkan salah satu daripada kakinya maka aku sudah dikira tidak amanah  dalam memberikan jawapan”

Cuba kamu perhatikan Abdullah, betapa wara’nya al-Imam as-Syafie ketika menjawab persoalan berkaitan dunia. Apatah lagi kalau berkaitan dengan agamanya?

Al-Imam Malik radhiyallahu anhu pernah didatangi oleh seorang pemuda dalam majlisnya di Madinah al-Munawwarah. Pemuda tersebut menyatakan bahawa dia datang dari negeri yang jauhnya 6 bulan perjalanan daripada Madinah.
Pemuda itu datang untuk bertanyakan satu masalah yang berlaku di tempatnya.
Al-Imam Malik radhiyallahu anhu, mengatakan bahawa “Maaf, aku tidak pandai untuk menyelesaikannya”
Pemuda tersebut hairan dengan jawapan Imam Malik, dan dia bertanya: “Bagaimana aku akan menjawab nanti bila mana ditanya oleh penduduk tempatku?”
Maka kata al-Imam Malik: “Katakan kepada mereka bahawa Malik juga tidak mengetahui bagaimana untuk menyelesaikannya”

Cuba kamu lihat Abdullah betapa amanahnya mereka dengan ilmu. Berbeza dengan manusia zaman sekarang yang baru setahun jagung di dalam ilmu sudah mendabik dada mengaku bahawa seolah-olah mereka mengetahui segalanya.
Mereka sungguh mudah membida'ahkan perkara-perkara khilaf dan menolak pandangan ulama-ulama muktabar terdahulu dengan alasan yang pelbagai.

Pemuda: MasyaAllah, terima kasih pak kiyai atas penjelasan yang sangat memuaskan. Saya memohon maaf atas kekasaran dan keterlanjuran bicara saya .
Pak Kiyai: Sama-sama Abdullah. Semoga kamu akan menjadi seorang yang akan membawa panji agama kelak dengan ajaran yang benar insya Allah.

Kredit: Zarissa Zuha Zam
Sumber: https://m.facebook.com/thepatriots2020/photos/a.182165691977464.1073741828.181500092044024/609992165861479/?type=3

Elias Hj Idris