Jho Low says he was never in a position of influence in 1MDB case

PETALING JAYA • Fugitive Malay-sian businessman Low Taek Jho has filed a statement of defence, maintaining that he does not hold any official positions in debt-ridden state fund 1MDB or its four subsidiaries.

Low's lawyers filed the defence at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Wednesday against a US$3.78 billion (S$5.13 billion) civil action suit brought on by 1Malaysia Development Berhad and its subsidiaries.

The lawsuit was filed last May against Low, his parents Larry Low Hock Peng and Goh Gaik Ewe, sister May Lin, younger brother Taek Szen, and associate Eric Tan Kim Loong.

The businessman, commonly known as Jho Low, argued that he was never a director or shareholder in 1MDB or its four subsidiaries, nor a member of its board of advisers or part of the management team of any of the plaintiffs.

"As such, (Low) has no legal standing to exercise control over the plaintiffs, including but not limited to directing or otherwise causing the alleged transfer and/or receipt of funds," he stated.

The businessman said the suit should be dismissed as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action over the allegation of breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

Low faces charges in Malaysia and the US over claims that he orchestrated the theft of billions of dollars from state fund 1MDB, co-founded by former prime minister Najib Razak in 2009.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) estimates that at least US$4.5 billion was looted from 1MDB.

Low, who has two Interpol red notices and a US arrest warrant against him, has consistently denied wrongdoing.

In his latest move, he said 1MDB's suit against him was redundant, as it was based on the US DoJ's filings, news portal Malaysiakini reported.

The DoJ's suit against him had been mutually settled without any finding of "guilt, fault, liability and/or any form of wrongdoing", but 1MDB ignored the resolution of the DoJ civil action, he said.

1MDB's case amounted to a "double claim of funds voluntarily forfeited by the DoJ", he added.

Low also argued that the resolution of the DoJ action led to the voluntary forfeiture and repatriation of assets for the ultimate benefit of the Malaysian government, which is also to the benefit of the plaintiffs in the case.

"The plaintiffs' claims amount to an impermissible double counting of such repatriated assets, and therefore should not be considered as forfeitable sums," he stated in his defence filing.

THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK