PETALING JAYA: Fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho (pic) maintains he does not hold any official position in 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) or its four subsidiaries.
He said this in a statement filed by his lawyers at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Wednesday against a civil suit by 1MDB and its subsidiaries on him and his family members.
In May last year, 1MDB and subsidiaries 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, 1MDB Energy Limited, 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited and Global Diversified Investment Company Limited, formerly known as 1MDB Global Investments Limited, filed a US$3.7837bil (RM15.75bil) suit against Low, his parents Tan Sri Larry Low Hock Peng and Puan Sri Goh Gaik Ewe, his sister May Lin, his younger brother Taek Szen and his associate Eric Tan Kim Loong.
Low claimed the suit should be dismissed as it had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action over the allegation of breach of trust or fiduciary duty.
He said he was never a director, shareholder, advisory board member or part of the management team in 1MDB and the four subsidiaries.
“As such, the first defendant (Low) has no legal standing to exercise control over the companies, including but not limited to directing or otherwise causing the alleged transfer and/or receipt of funds,” he said.
According to news portal Malaysiakini, Low said 1MDB’s lawsuit against him was redundant as the present civil action suit was based on the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filings regarding certain allegations.
However, he said, the DOJ civil suit had been mutually settled without finding “guilt, fault, liability and/or any form of wrongdoing”.
Low said 1MDB had ignored the resolution of the DOJ civil action.
He said the DOJ action led to the voluntary forfeiture and repatriation of assets that ultimately benefited the Malaysian government, which is also to the benefit of the companies.
“The Malaysian government owns these companies, through the Minister of Finance (Incorporated), and the prime mover of the suit. Therefore, the claims are redundant.
“In further consideration of the foregoing, the companies’ claims amount to an impermissible double counting of such repatriated assets, and therefore should not be considered as forfeitable sums,” Low added.
