PwC Malaysia's application to admit documents under Section 90 (A) of the Evidence Act was rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court

On the 5th of December 2012, the Kuala Lumpur High Court made a finding that :

i) no evidence that these documents came from the system (PwC Servers)

ii) no evidence that these documents are still in the system (PwC Servers).

This was after PwC Partner, Lee Geok Ling, told the court during cross examination that :

i) he did not generate the documents from the system (PwC Servers)

ii) these documents (including purported emails) could have been manipulated.

Strangely, PwC's counsel did not re-examine Mr Lee Geok Ling after cross examination.

According to our PwC Insider, during the court room proceedings the Plaintiffs' contention was that these documents were fabricated.

Interestingly, PwC did not make available any Server reports or logs as evidence that these "documents" were or are still in the system (PwC Servers).

Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair should read the entire transcripts of the 5th of December 2012 in detail because what happened was under your watch and the buck stops with the both of you.

We the Group of 6 are only doing this for a better Malaysia, and PwC being the largest Accounting Firm in Malaysia can do much better than this. 

Malaysia's Corporate Governance Journey; Are we going anywhere at all?

The Securities Commission released its Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance in March this year. It was signed off by the erstwhile Chairman of the SC, just before the mantle of responsibility was passed on to other shoulders.

Malaysia’s Corporate Governance Journey

1. Malaysia recognises the value of good governance and it is for this reason that we are committed to promoting and sustaining a strong culture of corporate governance. Investor confidence in Malaysia was severely affected during the 1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis. Policy makers learnt valuable lessons and focused their attention, amongst others, on the need to raise corporate governance standards. We undertook numerous initiatives including the issuance of the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (Code) in the year 2000 to strengthen our corporate governance framework.

2.....The Audit Oversight Board was established to provide independent oversight over external auditors of companies.....

Recommendation 5.2

The Audit Committee should have policies and procedures to assess the suitability and independence of external auditors.

Commentary

The Audit Committee should review and monitor the suitability and independence of external auditors. The independence of external auditors can be impaired by the provision of non-audit services to the company. The Audit Committee should therefore establish policies governing the circumstances under which contracts for the provision of non-audit services can be entered into and procedures that must be followed by the external auditors. To provide support for an assessment on independence, the Audit Committee should obtain written assurance from the external auditors confirming that they are, and have been, independent throughout the conduct of the audit engagement in accordance with the terms of all relevant professional and regulatory requirements.

~ MALAYSIAN CODE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 2012

The Code seems to have been born from noble intentions, but can this Code, or any other Code for that matter, take us on the road to an acceptable standard of Corporate Governance if all we have is more of the same as days go by?

Have we truly learned our lessons from the Financial Crisis of 1997/98? Have the regulatory bodies become true regulators, or are they still toothless tigers when they face the task of regulating the global behemoths, like the Big Four?

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of the United States of America blamed widespread failure of financial regulators, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by both households and financial firms along with "systemic breaches in accountability and ethics" at all levels for the crisis. ~ The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) is a ten-member commission appointed by the United States government with the goal of investigating the causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2010.

Time and again governments across the world point their collective fingers at the respective Regulators and the failure of Corporate Governance as among the chief causes for whatever financial crisis is the flavour of the year/decade. But if we look at the commentary on Point 5.2 above, the SC still chooses to leave the method of ensuring the independence of the external auditors, to a written note from the same external auditors.

If the external auditors are little more than a bunch of crooks and scoundrels, can a simple handwritten assurance stop them from being true to their nature? Have we not seen enough evidence that auditors, no matter how prestigious the name they carry, are capable of being as nefarious as any two bit crime syndicate?

Changing the people heading the various regulators, and firms implicated in thievery, will not change much. What we need is clear evidence that the regulators will start upholding the standards they claim to espouse without fear or favour, and go after the transgressors to the full extent of the law.

Of course, after that, we will also need evidence that the Courts of Law themselves are also truly capable of upholding the laws of the land.

Is this how discovery of documents is supposed to work in the High Court?

Failure to comply with the rules of discovery may, in more serious cases, result in an action being dismissed, or a defence being struck out and judgment entered accordingly.~ Shearn Delamore & Co

The firm of Shearn Delamore & Co, has published a paper which covers the rules for discovery of documents in the Malaysian High Courts.

6.5 To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted, how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted, what other, if any, mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse
party or from third parties?
 

The Rules of the High Court 1980, Order 24 sets out the mechanism for the
discovery and inspection of documents at the pre-trial stage.
First, there is a requirement for the mutual discovery of documents at
the close of pleadings whereby parties to an action shall make and serve on
each other a list of documents which are or have been in their possession or
custody relating to any matter in question in the action.
Second, the High Court is empowered to order the discovery of
documents on the application of any party to an action upon the failure
by another party to comply with the requirements for discovery under the
Rules of High Court 1980. The High Court may further order that the party
make discovery and file an affidavit verifying the lists of documents to be
filed, and a copy to be served on the applicant.
The documents listed by a party to an action for discovery shall be
available for inspection and the taking of copies by the other party. The
High Court is empowered to make an order for such documents to be made
available for inspection and the taking of copies, on the application of any
party to the proceedings, upon the failure of the other party to produce any
documents listed for discovery for inspection and taking of copies.
Failure to comply with the rules of discovery may, in more serious cases,
result in an action being dismissed, or a defence being struck out and
judgment entered accordingly.

http://www.shearndelamore.com/assets/templates/images/pdf/paper_publications/Pat_Lit_Malaysia%2016pp.pdf

The counsel defending PwC Malaysia, in the case which is currently being heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, is a partner in Shearn Delamore & Co. So we have to wonder why PwC Malaysia decided to conceal 162 documents at the start of the trial, and why their learned counsel would have thought that this was a good idea?

The High Court will have to take a serious look at the question whether justice is being done when a global behemoth like PwC, or at least its Malaysian avatar, PwC Malaysia, can decide when and how it chooses to allow discovery of documents, and in fact manipulate the rules of discovery to suit itself.

Further, once the action has been instituted and pleadings are
deemed to be closed, it is provided under Order 24 of the
Malaysian Rules of High Court 1980 that parties are to institute
discovery of documents between parties of the action. This order
compels each party to make discovery and give inspection of the
documents which are or have been in their possession, custody
or power relating to the matters in question in the action.

~ This is the answer given by Malaysia to the AIPPI, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

Isn't this a case of "cakap tak serupa bikin"? We have a case here where the rules of discovery may as well have disappeared into thin air.

The need for a level playing field becomes incredibly important when we have a case of a David (Malaysian citizen) taking on a Goliath (multi-billion dollar Global Firm), but we seem to not be able to provide that level playing field, despite all the rules and orders which state otherwise.

How many cases involving Goliaths like PwC have gone their way, because they were able to manipulate matters so that the Plaintiffs who have had the gumption to take them to task were not even allowed to have a proper discovery of documents before the trial began?

And when the goliaths are secure in the knowledge that they can forever hide what they wish, and lie as they wish, when they are dragged into the courts in Malaysia, can justice even enter our shores?

PwC's lawyers knew beforehand what the Judge was going to raise in Chambers and came prepared with documents: How is this possible?

An application has been made to recuse the Judge in the ongoing PwC Malaysia Kuala Lumpur High Court trial. The application was made based upon comments made in the Judge's Chambers by the Judge, which were indicative of bias on the part of the Judge.

According to our PwC insider, the Judge is being asked to recuse himself on the basis of the comments made by the Judge in Chambers.

The other piece of news we received from our PwC insider is just as disturbing, if not more so.

When the parties are called into chambers by the Judge, both sides should be equally unaware of what the Judge wishes to bring into discussion. But the lawyers for PwC Malaysia actually went into the Judge's Chambers, fully prepared with the documents relating to what the Judge later raised.

This was done as if PwC Malaysia, the defendant's, lawyers already knew beforehand what the Judge was going to ask in Chambers! All of this is in the Plaintiffs' affidavit.

Faiz Azmi, how do the lawyers representing your firm, PwC Malaysia,  know what is going to be raised by the Judge in Chambers beforehand? Are you going to investigate this, or are you going to wait for us to do everything?

We, the Group of Six, know more about this from our PwC Insider, but we will only reveal the rest of the  information when absolutely needed. But we would like to raise the same question to Paul Boorman, PwC's Global Leader for Operation.

Paul Boorman, are you going to investigate how the lawyers for PwC Malaysia knew beforehand what the Judge was going to raise in Chambers, and actually came prepared with the documents before the question had even been raised?

 PwC Malaysia's trial will resume in August 2012.

Rebekah Brooks charged in court for concealing documents, PwC Senior Partners remain free.

Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie, have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the phone-hacking inquiry....In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents....


The ongoing trial in the Kuala Lumpur High Court began in August 2011. At the start of the trial, PwC's Senior Partners decided to conceal 162 sensitive e-mails, letters and documents, and in fact manipulated matters so that there was no Discovery of Documents before the trial.

This concealment of documents became untenable when other parties, including us, the Group of Six, received evidence from certain PwC insiders, which was hitherto hidden. As the pressure to reveal the full truth became unbearable, PwC Malaysia was ordered by PwC International to reveal what had been hidden from the courts and the counter parties in the lawsuit.

The documents were revealed in January 2012, and with its addition, we have a body of evidence that paint a clear picture of the litany of misdeeds and fraudulent behaviour by PwC over the years; more than enough for a bestseller or two.

What interests us at the moment is the difference we see in how the concealment of documents is handled in Malaysia, when compared to other Commonwealth countries.

In the News of the World phone hacking probe, we see how it's Editor, Rebekah Brooks and other key executives are charged in the Westminster Magistrates' Court with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, with the third charge relating to the conspiracy to conceal documents. This relentless pursuit of justice happens even though the Brook's are close friends of British PM David Cameron.




Rebekah Brooks, charged with conspiracy to conceal documents, amongst others.

 But the same situation is not seen in Malaysia, even though we are modelled after the English Justice System.

We have instead, PwC running riot over the KL High Court rules, and even using fabricated documents while they were hiding the real documents in the trial.

In any other country, PwC's Senior partners would have been charged in court by now, and not even David Cameron would have been able to give them a "Get Out of Jail Free" pass.




Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair, if the Courts did charge your Senior Partners with conspiracy to conceal documents, will you find the corridors of your office strangely silent, with not a creature stirring?


PwC Malaysia, "Sepandai pandai tupai melompat, akhirnya jatuh ke tanah juga".

PwC Malaysia MD's witness statement would have sent him to jail in most other countries

We have just obtained these latest explosive documents from our PwC Insider, relating to the trial which is set to resume on the 22nd of May, 2012.

In the witness statement by PwC's MD, Chin Kwai Fatt, that we have received from our PwC Insider, Chin Kwai Fatt claims no knowledge of the Dow Jones Documents.



PwC Malaysia's MD, Chin Kwai Fatt, claims to have never seen the Dow Jones Documents, which use Chiron's Method to decipher the movement of the Dow Jones Index.

 Chin Kwai Fatt, was the Quality Assurance Director for the assignment, which is why he is being sued in his personal capacity as the third defendant in the lawsuit.

The Dow Jones Documents (the "Dow Jones Flow Charts" and "The Workings For The Dow Jones Flow Charts") are 200 flow charts, the Intellectual Property of the client, which are deciphered using Chiron's Method, to presage the movement of the Dow Jones Index, and formed the basis for the total valuation of RM 75 million given by PwC Malaysia to the client.



PwC Malaysia's Internal Valuation Checklist, with the handwritten notes by PwC's partner Jayaram Krishnamoorthy, which clearly states that they have identified the Intellectual Property of the client (Including Chiron's Method) as well as how its value is manifested.

 Let us recap for the moment. PwC Malaysia has given a valuation of RM 75 million to the client, based totally on the 200 flowcharts which make up the Dow Jones Documents, which are deciphered using Chiron's method, which they have even identified in the internal Valuation Checklist, and which the Quality Assurance Director for the assignment, Chin Kwai Fatt, the MD of PWC Malaysia, claims to have never seen, and says further that neither were these documents required for the assignment.

There are no tangible assets in the valuation. The sum of RM 75 million reflects the value PwC Malaysia identified only on the Intellectual Property of the client. Now, how do you identify the intangible assets, without seeing it, and furthermore, how do you arrive at a figure of RM 75 million if you have never seen it?

Chin Kwai Fatt and Jayaram Krishnamoorthy, how do you identify it as Chiron's method, and ascertain that the value in the Intellectual Property manifests as cash flows, and give a valuation of RM 75 million, then claim to have never seen it?

What sorcery is this?

What magical methods does PwC Malaysia use to arrive at a valuation of 75 million Ringgit, without even laying eyes on the very documents which were mysteriously identified in their very own internal Valuation Checklist? And we have now witness statements by the very person whose handwriting is in the Valuation Checklist, Jayaram Krishnamoorthy, and the Quality Assurance Director for the assignment, PwC's MD Chin Kwai Fatt, that the documents were never in their line of sight!!

This intellectual property, i.e Chiron's Method as identified in the Valuation Checklist, and the Dow Jones Documents which uses Chiron's method, are the only assets in the RM75 million valuation,. There were no tables or chairs or any other inventory or fixed asset in the valuation.

But now, after having valued it at RM 75 million, with no amortization mind you, PwC Malaysia through its MD, Chin Kwai Fatt, claim to have never seen the documents.

In most other countries, PwC's MD will now be behind bars for perjury, the giving of false testimony.

The trial is set to resume on the 22nd of May, 2012, in the KL High Court.

Why PwC Malaysia cannot afford Jayaram Krishnamoorthy and Chin Kwai Fatt to take the witness stand - Part 1

Paul Boorman, we have asked you many questions, which we hope has given you much food for thought. Here are some more questions for you to ponder open.

Paul Boorman, we are sure that you are familiar with the internal document that PwC Malaysia uses, called the Valuation Checklist. What this Valuation Checklist contains is all the facts that PwC has confirmed and verified for clients, as a part of the Valuation process.

Now, in the facsimile of the Valuation Checklist that we have received, we can see that the client's Intellectual Property has been verified and confirmed.

The client's Intellectual Property, in the form of 200 diagrams, had been checked and confirmed, and PwC has concluded in the Valuation Checklist, that the client's Intellectual Property has a 80% probability of working. You with us so far, Mr Boorman?

On the basis of what they had checked and confirmed, the client was given a valuation of RM 75 million based primarily on his Intellectual Property.

The trial started in August 2011, and the Valuation Checklist we are referring to was one of the 162 concealed documents which PwC claimed was not in their possession.

The decision to conceal these 162 documents, including the Valuation Checklist, was made by Chin Kwai Fatt, Johan Raslan and a few more senior partners of PwC Malaysia.

During the trial, when Chin Kwai Fatt (the ex Managing Director) and Jayaram Krishnamoorthy (now a Partner in PwC) put their witness statements in court, they were absolutely confident that the Valuation Checklist will never be revealed.

To their utter dismay, PwC Malaysia was forced to reveal these documents in January of 2012, 5 months after the trial started.

They have identified, with handwritten notes, from this internal document of PwC Malaysia, that they had tested and identified the client's Intellectual Property, and gave it a valuation of RM 75 million.

When both Jayaram Krishnamoorthy and Chin Kwai Fatt, in their confidence that the documents will never be revealed, stated in their respective witness statements that they never saw the client's Intellectual Property, nor had they taken it and tested it, they took a huge risk, because if the documents were ever revealed, they will also be revealed as liars. 

Now that the witness statements of Jayaram Krishnamoorthy and Chin Kwai Fatt clearly contradicts their internal Valuation Checklist, they cannot take the witness stands, as they will only be doing so to perjure themselves.

Paul Boorman, the Valuation Checklist is document 173 in PwC Malaysia's bundle of documents. Please read the witness statements by Chin Kwai Fatt and Jayaram Krishnamoorthy, and the internal Valuation Checklist, and ask yourself this question. Is this not perjury?

Paul Boorman, you have a duty to PwC, to ensure that perjury is not added to the litany of misdeeds and fraud perpetrated by PwC Malaysia.

One final note Paul Boorman, this latest chapter will be one of the stories told in the upcoming book, one we think has all the ingredients to become a bestseller.

Shearn Delamore's Nad Segaram allegedly suffers from police brutality during the Bersih 3.0 rally

On behalf of the Group of Six, we would like to extend our sympathies to Shearn Delamore's Nad Segaram for being allegedly hammered by the police, to the extent of having cuts that needed stitches on his head. Must have been some experience.

Nad Segaram is the right hand man, the go-to guy, for Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan, who is the counsel for PwC in the ongoing civil suit in the KL High Court.

We were very sad to hear that he had allegedly become a victim of police "brutality" at the Bersih rally recently, to the extent that he is now sporting stitches on his person.



Shearn Delamore's Nad Segaram, before Bersih 3.0

 But now is not the time for mushy emotions, but for some hard hitting (forgive the pun) questions.

Nad Segaram, you and your mentor, Rabindra Nathan do work for GLC's and UMNO linked companies, but yet, you attended Bersih 3.0. The very same rally our Prime Minister Najib has called an attempt to overthrow the government by certain parties form the other side.

Leave aside the irony that PM Najibs brother, Datuk Johari Razak is a Senior Partner at Shearn Delamore, how do you justify your attending the rally as an active participant to the extent that the police had to cast their baleful glance upon your person?

Where is the congruence between what you do from 9 to 5, and what you attempted to do last Saturday? Why will you even be a part of an attempt to overthrow the very Government that gives you a reason to go to the office everyday?


Rabindra Nathan, were you there at Bersih 3.0 as well? Have you disavowed your pro BN Stance?

 Rabindra and Nad, if you actually believe that the government has to be overthrown, then walk away from your 9 to 5 jobs, and wear yellow wherever you go. In fact, Nad Segaram, you should now file a suit against the Polis for the alleged brutality you suffered, being a lawyer and all that.

The bigger question is this, should Rabindra Nathan and Nad Segaram continue to represent PwC who are 100% behind the PM and BN? Or was this a case of a Shearn Delamore partner hedging his bets in case PR takes over the government?

Do Rabindra and Nad Segaram agree with the PM's statement that Bersih 3.0 was an attempt to overthrow the government? Have the two of you disavowed your pro BN stance?

While we cannot confirm this, several PwC partners were also said to be near Nad Segaram when he took his hits, but as we said, we cannot confirm this, so no names will be mentioned.

Walk your talk, and don't be different things to different people. What explanation are you going to give Datuk Johari Razak and the other Senior Partners when they find out you are trying to bat for the other team on the sly? For that matter, what are you going to tell your clients, PwC Malaysia?





PwC Malaysia's Change Of Guard, But It's Problems Have Not Gone Away

With Chin Kwai Fatt leaving, all the key players have left PwC. The new Chairman and Managing Partner must now answer the questions that hang, like the Sword of Damocles, above the seats they are to occupy.


 PwC has issued a Valuation Report of RM 75,000,000 for a client, based solely on the Intellectual Property that the client had given to PwC after paying them for a Valuation.

But now PwC have made the first two of the following points the very core of their 'new' defense in the ongoing trial, as each day gives them fewer options to fall back upon..

1. PwC now say that they did not check the Intellectual Property

2. PwC now say that they did not even verify the existence of the Intellectual Property, as ridiculous as that may sound. So ridiculous in fact, that no witnesses want to come forward on PwC's behalf.

3. They know full well that they took the Intellectual Property from the client to test it, and did not even return the Intellectual Property to the client after valuing it at RM 75 million.

4. Chin Kwai Fatt was the Quality Assurance Director for the assignment, which is why Chin Kwai Fatt is the third defendant in the lawsuit, in his personal capacity. The first two defendants being PwC itself and PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd.

Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair. If someone came to you with a Unicorn, will you and your firm also give the Unicorn a valuation of RM75,000,000?



Come one, come all.. Bring your unicorns to PwC, and we will value it at RM 75 million....

 Faiz, Sridharan, it is a pity that you will have to take over with so much unresolved business. But we have to ask you this, since your firm can give a Valuation Report of RM 75 million to Intellectual Property that has now become as mythical as Unicorns.

1. How do you issue a Valuation Report of RM75,000,000 for a clients Intellectual Property , when PwC now says they did not even verify the existence of the Intellectual Property?

2. What are you going to do about the existence of the consulting arm, PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd, which has been shut down all over the world with the sale to IBM back in 2003?

"PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia, together with all the other offices of PwC worldwide were supposed to allow IBM Corp to acquire their Consulting Business, as part of a global acquisition by IBM Corp of the Consulting and Technology arm of PwC in 2003.

According to the letter sent to the SEC in The United States as well the Article of Non Opposition issued by the EEC in Europe, there was no way for the Consulting arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Malaysia to remain exempt from the sale. And the consulting arm of PwC Malaysia was and still is PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), which till today remains under the ownership and control of the MD of PwC Malaysia, Chin Kwai Fatt; the Executive Chairman, Johan Raslan and other Senior Partners of PwC Malaysia. 

But what happened in Malaysia is an interesting sleight of hand, where a company called PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd, was renamed as PwC Consulting Malaysia Sdn Bhd (289801-A) on 20-11-2001, to be sold off to IBM Corp as the 'legitimate' Consulting arm of PwC in Malaysia.

This was done to defraud the creditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), as there was no way to allow IBM Corp to acquire this company without disclosing the hundreds of millions of Ringgit worth of contingent liabilities PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) was hiding.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan, together with their co-conspirators also use a tainted Auditor to audit the books of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), to keep the contingent liabilities out of sight."

 

3. You must also ensure that the defendants collectively, including the firm must apologise for the suppression of the 162 documents, and which were subsequently only released halfway through the trial. The resignation of Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan alone is not enough.

 

4. Please also take the time to look at Jayaram Krishnamoorthy's witness statement in very great detail.

 

Though you may want to start with a clean slate, PwC's past has been so sullied, that you will have to make the effort to wipe the slate clean yourselves, Sridharan and Faiz.

 

The world is watching, the clock is ticking....

PwC's Enron like moment in Asia will happen in 2012:Explosive new book on PwC's misconduct will be released later this year.

Irrespective of the outcome of the trial at the Malaysian High Court, this book will be published.

Several publishers both in the United States and in Europe have expressed interest in publishing this book.

This book will center around PwC's hidden documents, internal emails, false witness statements and affidavits.

As way back as 2003, PwC's General Counsel knew about this case, and Andrew Plunkett from the General Counsel's office told the enquirers to refer to the Malaysian office, while all the damaging emails were sitting in Pwc's global servers.

This explosive email has been sitting in PwC's global servers for years, waiting quietly for its destiny.

The book will also examine in depth Chin Kwai Fatt's role as the Managing Director of PwC in Malaysia, and his lies in his 7th september letter will be fully exposed in the book.

This book will help the people of the world decide if PwC is in the right or wrong.

Recommended Reading:

Den of Thieves, by James B Stewart.

 

A number-one bestseller from coast to coast, Den of Thieves tells, in masterfully reported detail, the full story of the insider-trading scandal that nearly destroyed Wall Street, the men who pulled it off, and the chase that finally brought them to justice. Pulitzer Prize winner James B. Stewart shows for the first time how four of the biggest names on Wall Street -- Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, and Dennis Levine -- created the greatest insider-trading ring in financial history and almost walked away with billions, until a team of downtrodden detectives triumphed over some of America's most expensive lawyers to bring this powerful quartet to justice.

 

Based on secret grand jury transcripts, interviews, and actual trading records, and containing explosive new revelations about Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky written especially for this paperback edition, Den of Thieves weaves all the facts into an unforgettable narrative -- a portrait of human nature, big business, and crime of unparalleled proportions.

 

Judging the Judges loyarburok.com

PwC Runs Riot Over Malaysia's High Court Rules

The explosive email  that shows how PwC cheats its paying client.



Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria. 
Learned Chief Justice, is this Justice in 2012? When Order 34 of the High Court is used to deny justice to ordinary rakyat?

 We had earlier revealed that PwC were forced to reveal 162 documents and emails that they had previously concealed from the Kuala Lumpur High Court. One of the emails is shown above, and it states:-

"...and we are now proposing to go to the client with a cleverly crafted 'calculation' as opposed to valuation per se. I don't know if he will buy this - as far as he was concerned, he paid for a PwC valuation and spent a month or so explaining the attributes/assumptions that impact value. Now to revert by saying that the earlier drafts discussed had not been reviewed by a director and hence, we cannot give him a valuation {on the numbers he expected} per se - you can imagine the shit that's going to hit me this evening. Even worse, our TOR said valuation."

Why were PwC forced to reveal the 100 over documents, including this damaging email? Simply because the plaintiffs had already obtained copies thanks to PwC insiders.

Dato' Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, aren't High Court Rules supposed to ensure fairplay instead of being very biased towards big firms like PwC?

Here is the latest affidavit by Khoo Chuan Keat, where PwC tries to explain why they hid all the documents all these years:

PwC uses Order 34 of the High Court to hide evidence that contradicts its entire defense and witness statements so far..

Here PwC's Khoo Chuan Keat states :

" (ii) Pursuant to pre-trial case management directions handed down by this Honourable Court pursuant to Order 34 Rule 4(2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('RHC'), each party was directed to furnish the documents that it intended to use at trial. To this end I am advised by the 2nd Defendant's solicitors and verily believe that there was no obligation to furnish any other documents over and beyond those which the 2nd Defendant intended to use at trial."

Learned Chief Justice, is this why the Rules of the High Court exist? So that the country's biggest audit firm, PwC, can use it against the ordinary rakyat that come to your court pleading for justice? So that PwC can use fraudulent documents crafted by Chin Kwai Fatt in its defense, instead of the real documents that are so damaging to PwC that they would have made the trial a non-starter, had their existence been revealed from day one?

Learned Chief Justice, aren't PwC blaming the Judge now, even though these recently revealed documents contradict their entire defense, witness statements and affidavits? How much longer are PwC, with all their might and influence going to be allowed to treat the Kuala Lumpur High Court like their personal fiefdom, answerable to none, not even Justice itself?

Isn't PwC hiding these documents and emails that clearly show how the Senior Partners knowingly cheated their client, and instead using fabricated documents for their defense, criminal acts on their own?

Is this where Justice stands in this country, 54 years after Merdeka?

Lim Chee Wee, President of the Malaysian Bar

Mr Lim Chee Wee, are the solicitors for PwC, Zul Rafique and Partners, not in breach of Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978?

Rule 16. Advocate and solicitor to uphold interest of client, justice and dignity of profession.    
 
An advocate and solicitor shall while acting with all due courtesy to the tribunal before which he is appearing, fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, the interest of justice and dignity of the profession without regard to any unpleasant consequences either to himself or to any other person.

Rule 17. No deception on Court.      

An advocate and solicitor shall not practice any deception on the Court.

Rule 18. Advocate and solicitor to conduct with condour, courtesy and fairness.    
 
The conduct of an advocate and solicitor before the Court and in relation to other advocates and solicitors shall be characterised by candour, courtesy and fairness.

PwC AsiaPac Singapore files.......

MORE TO COME..........

Sridharan Nair takes over as the Managing Director of PwC Malaysia, effective 1st June, 2012

It's not always gloom and doom here, despite the evidence to the contrary.

We are happy to share the news that Sridharan Nair has been picked as the new Managing Director for PwC Malaysia, and that he will officially take the helm on the 1st of June, 2012.

This is a great opportunity for everyone to start afresh, and for PwC to once again be a name to be reckoned within the auditing fraternity.

Sridharan Nair, PwC Malaysia's MD elect

What makes the news even better is the fact that Sridharan was chosen by consensus, and that the other candidate vying for the same position sportingly gave way to Sridharan, to make him a choice for all of PwC Malaysia.

We would like to take this opportunity to congragulate Mr Sridharan Nair on his appointment, and to wish him all the best in the years ahead.

Paul Boorman has to put a STOP to this ongoing PwC fraud : Raymond Hoh See Lee signs affidavit without lawful authority

The trial in the Kuala Lumpur High Court has been postponed until the middle of March, 2012. The Honourable Judge has allowed time for the Plaintiffs' to go through the suppressed and concealed documents which have been brought to light. 


Raymond Hoh See Lee is an Executive Director with PwC Malaysia (1st Defendant), and is a former employee of PwC Consulting Malaysia (2nd Defendant). He was an employee with PwC Consulting until the consulting company was sold off to IBM as part of the global sale.

"PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia, together with all the other offices of PwC worldwide were supposed to allow IBM Corp to acquire their Consulting Business, as part of a global acquisition by IBM Corp of the Consulting and Technology arm of PwC in 2003.

According to the letter sent to the SEC in The United States as well the Article of Non Opposition issued by the EEC in Europe, there was no way for the Consulting arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Malaysia to remain exempt from the sale. And the consulting arm of PwC Malaysia was and still is PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), which till today remains under the ownership and control of the MD of PwC Malaysia, Chin Kwai Fatt; the Executive Chairman, Johan Raslan and other Senior Partners of PwC Malaysia. 

But what happened in Malaysia is an interesting sleight of hand, where a company called PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd, was renamed as PwC Consulting Malaysia Sdn Bhd (289801-A) on 20-11-2001, to be sold off to IBM Corp as the 'legitimate' Consulting arm of PwC in Malaysia.

This was done to defraud the creditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), as there was no way to allow IBM Corp to acquire this company without disclosing the hundreds of millions of Ringgit worth of contingent liabilities PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) was hiding.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan, together with their co-conspirators also use a tainted Auditor to audit the books of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), to keep the contingent liabilities out of sight."

Today, Raymond Hoh See Lee is neither a shareholder, director or employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting, and yet he goes on to sign an affidavit without lawful authority for PwC Malaysia. 

The only reason he has done so is because Khoo Chuan Keat has chickened out from signing any further affidavits for PwC Malaysia, similarly, Johan Raslan has also chickened out of signing any further affidavits, so we have another Senior Partner stepping in to sign affidavits.

Mr Paul Boorman, Global Leader - Operations for  PricewaterhouseCoopers. When are you going to put a STOP to the ongoing fraud by PwC Malaysia?

This report by The Malaysian Insider, which says," It also said that Datuk Johan Raslan, executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, has repeatedly turned down the offer to head the watchdog agency.", is innacurate. The real reason Johan Raslan did not take up the SC top job, is because back in July 2011, he had signed an affidavit objecting to the discovery application by the plaintiffs'. And Johan Raslan very well knew about the conceled documents when he signed the affidavit, including of emails between PwC partners which clearly state an outright intention to cheat clients. Although Johan Raslan was not involved in the assignemnt that led to the lawsuit, his role in the active suppression of documents has led to his not being able to take up the SC job. 

Johan Raslan, why dont you invite #idris jala, # johan merican, #scinzel, for a drink and share the concealed documents with them? Your company is going through a crisis and you act like nothing is wrong. 

Errol Oh: Still think that PwC Malaysia deserve to be let off the hook?

“If a firm doesn't document its work, there is no basis for us to confirm that the firm has performed its function. One of the principles that we have adopted in our inspections is that if you fail to document, we will consider that you have not done the audit procedure. This is a very strong position that we have taken,” added Nik Mohd Hasyudeen. 


Big Four among audit firms with faults ~ Errol Oh

Errol Oh, Deputy Editor Bizweek, The Star

PwC Malaysia forced to Reveal 162 Documents that they were hiding.

With the latest revelations regarding the concealment of 162 documents by PwC Malaysia from the Kuala Lumpur High Court, we wonder how much longer it will take for the "real journalists" from the mainstream media to finally ask the questions of the biggest audit firm in the country, PwC Malaysia, and its senior management.

PwC Malaysia problem isn't that they do not document their work, but that they are masters at hiding documents when it suits their purpose. Question is why the main stream media remains silent about all these allegations?

National Union of Journalists Malaysia – Code of Ethics

1. Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.

Is there any respect for the truth when journalists allow questions raised against the biggest audit firm in the country, accusing them of fraud and concealment of evidence, to go unasked?

Sime Darby, Felda, Khazanah Nasional, PKFZ, Pemandu, and many more PIE's use PwC Malaysia's services. How are these journalists going to answer to the public, when it comes out that all these Public Interest Entities have been compromised by PwC Malaysia?

At the very least, shouldn't Errol Oh and his compatriots at least allow the senior management of PwC Malaysia room to deny all the allegations raised here and elsewhere, or to at least give their side of the story?

Is it so difficult to pick up the phone and call PwC Malaysia at +60 (3) 2173 1188, to give them a chance explain?

Is the PCAOB a toothless tiger? PwC Malaysia fraud and suppression of evidence goes unpunished.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, non-U.S. public accounting firms that audit or play a substantial role in the audit of U.S. issuers are subject to oversight by the PCAOB. Currently, over 900 non-U.S. audit firms from more than 85 countries have registered with the PCAOB. Under the Act and the Board's rules, non-U.S. registered firms are subject to PCAOB inspections in the same manner as U.S. firms. PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia is registered with the PCAOB

PwC Malaysia forced to Reveal 162 Documents that they were hiding.

Kuala Lumpur High Court Scandalised, courtesy of PwC Malaysia

James Doty, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board said in April that the inability to inspect auditors in China represents a “gaping hole in investor protection.” The board regulates and inspects registered auditors under the oversight of the SEC. (Copyright: Rich Clement/Bloomberg)

While Mr James Doty can lament about the inability of the PCAOB to inspect auditors in China, he should be more worried about the "gaping hole in their oversight" that allowed the PCAOB to register PwC Malaysia, even though they were aware of the fraud committed by PwC Malaysia back in 2003. 

"PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Office of General Counsel were made aware of the fraud allegations against PwC Malaysia back in 2003, and that they did nothing about it.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia, together with all the other offices of PwC worldwide were supposed to allow IBM Corp to acquire their Consulting Business, as part of a global acquisition by IBM Corp of the Consulting and Technology arm of PwC.

According to the letter sent to the SEC in The United States as well the Article of Non Opposition issued by the EEC in Europe, there was no way for the Consulting arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Malaysia to remain exempt from the sale. And the consulting arm of PwC Malaysia was and still is PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), which till today remains under the ownership and control of the MD of PwC Malaysia, Chin Kwai Fatt; the Executive Chairman, Johan Raslan and other Senior Partners of PwC Malaysia. 

But what happened in Malaysia is an interesting sleight of hand, where a company called PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd, was renamed as PwC Consulting Malaysia Sdn Bhd (289801-A) on 20-11-2001, to be sold off to IBM Corp as the 'legitimate' Consulting arm of PwC in Malaysia."

The PCAOB can obtain even further evidence of the fraud and suppression of evidence. All they need to do is to call Johan Raslan, Chin Kwai Fatt and Khoo Chuan Keat and ask the three to give copies of their affidavits opposing the application for discovery of documents by the plaintiffs in June and July of 2011, in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

These three, Malaysia's very own version of the '3 Idiots', are directors of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd, and the PCAOB can read for itself how their affidavits signed in mid-2011 show clear evidence of suppression of evidence, concealment and non-disclosure, of relevant emails, working papers, business plans, valuation reports, letters and other documents. They have been trapped by the affidavit by a Miss Ho, whose affidavit signed in January 20, 2012, clearly lists all 162 documents that they have been concealing all these years.

The PCAOB can also call Sreedharan Nair and Eric Ooi, the Senior Partners of PwC Malaysia who are contesting to be the next MD of the firm in the elections soon, and get the truth from them.

Their suppression of evidence is a clear violation of the IBM takeover and the SEC rules back in 2002. So what happens to the entire transaction now?

Click here for Johan Raslan's idiotic tweets while his firm is undergoing a crisis

What sort of checks and balances does the PCAOB have, when they are able to register a firm like PwC Malaysia, which not only commits fraud, but keeps it going for years and years.

What is the difference between PwC and Arthur Andersen? One shreds documents and the other conceals them.

What is the PCAOB going to do about PwC Malaysia? Or are they going to continue ignoring the fraud?

PwC Malaysia Forced To Reveal 162 Sensitive E-Mails, Letters and Documents That Were Previously Concealed From The Kuala Lumpur High Court!

What the Kuala Lumpur High Court failed to do rightfully, in July of 2011, PwC International finally did, by ordering PwC Malaysia to give discovery of documents.


The extent of the concealment, has been so shocking and prejudicial that a continued fair trial is no longer possible. 

Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria. 
Learned Chief Justice, had the Kuala Lumpur High Court rightfully ordered the Discovery of Documents before the trial , these 162 documents would have made the trial a non-starter. Will the Learned Chief Justice change the rules of the High Court after this?

This latest revelation may seem unbelievable to some, but a hundred and sixty two documents, concealed till now, cannot lie. While we have tried time and again to highlight the sheer perfidy that PwC Malaysia is capable of, even we did not expect that PwC Malaysia would have been capable of this latest shocker.

Whatever your opinion of PwC Malaysia has been till now, be prepared to have it replaced with one of sheer disgust and contempt.

PwC International, is as guilty as PwC Malaysia in allowing this state of affairs to continue for so many years, and they know that their action, or inaction in the face of clear cut fraud, has put the entire brand of PricewaterhouseCoopers at risk. That they have ordered PwC Malaysia to allow discovery of documents, shows that this scandal has implications beyond the borders of Malaysia.

Coenraad Van Beek, Global Leader for Ethics and Business Conduct at PwC International.

Coenraad Van Beek was contacted back in 2010, and was made fully aware of the allegations of fraud against PwC Malaysia, but chose to do nothing.

Paul Boorman, Global Leader for Operation for PwC International.

Paul Boorman, was made aware of the allegation of fraud against PwC Malaysia, and he also chose to do nothing.

In this post, we first showed that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and the Office of General Counsel, were aware of the fraud by PwC Malaysia way back in 2003, and how they chose to do nothing.

Reply from the Office of General Counsel, New York. 

We have another question for the office of General Counsel for PwC International now. Do you practice concealment only in Malaysia or is this a global standard for PwC?

We are well aware that PwC International has been complicit with PwC Malaysia in allowing this acts of fraud and deceit to go on for more than a decade.

Welcome to your comeuppance.

More to come...

DPM Muhyiddin please be careful, PwCgate can overshadow Cowgate

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the market talk is that PwC Malaysia will be picked to do the audit for the National Feedlot Corporation, NFC, soon.

Can this be true?

Tan Sri, can you imagine Chin Kwai Fatt, the MD of PwC Malaysia, and master of document fabrication, auditing Cowgate?

Chin Kwai Fatt, an original member of the Malaysian 3 Idiots, to audit the NFC?

Chin Kwai Fatt is now trapped by the fact that one of the documents he has fabricated in an ongoing Kuala Lumpur High Court case not only contradicts his own witness statement, but also the amended defense of all the defendants.

Why is the Auditor General's report not enough for the truth about the NFC to be made public?

Even if an external audit is needed, please pick a reputable audit firm to avoid the matter becoming worse. Can Tan Sri imagine the fallout when the auditors are exposed as bigger crooks than those they audit?

Felda listing tainted by PwC Malaysia Audit:PM Najib should ask Johan Raslan to immediately answer the following questions

According to our PwC Malaysia insider, the evidence of fabrication of documents by PwC Malaysia is going to come out in open court in February 2012. To add insult to injury, a little bird says that Chin Kwai Fatt himself will be shown as having fabricated one of the documents during the trial...


The listing of Felda Global Ventures Holding should rightfully be an event that will bring great joy to the Felda settlers, but could there be a fly in the ointment that we are missing, that can turn what should be tears of joy into genuine tears of sorrow and grief....?

The numbers are now being crunched by PwC Malaysia, in preparation for the listing of FGVH, and therein lies the problem.

Will institutional investors trust an audit done by PwC Malaysia? Will any investor worth his salt trust an audit done by an audit firm like PwC Malaysia that fabricates documents and submits them in a bundle to a Court of Law?

Is it worth risking the future of thousands of settlers and their families, when the proof of fabrication comes out in open court, and the forgers are found to be the very same chaps running the audit firm behind the Felda listing?

PM Najib, please get Johan Raslan and Co to issue a public denial that they have ever fabricated documents within the next 48 hours.  

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in FGVH's planned listing, the chain is weakest at the point where PwC Malaysia have been allowed to play a role. With a litany of misdeeds longer than Yao Ming's arm, how can they have been picked over proper and reputable firms like Ernst & Young or KPMG to do the audit?

The interest of the Felda settlers has been compromised, but it is still not too late. If Johan Raslan and Co refuse to issue a public denial that they have fabricated documents in the next 48 hours, get them to step down and place an untainted audit firm to continue with the work.

Ask Johan Raslan and Chin Kwai Fatt to deny that Document 41 in the first bundle is a fabrication.

Ask them to publicly deny that Chin Kwai Fatt's email in the second bundle, which contradicts his own witness statement, is a fabrication.

Ask them why Chin Kwai Fatt, Johan Raslan and VU KUmar just sat mutely at counsels' table, while their counsel was busy misconstruing their instructions?

Can we honestly say that the listing of Felda Global Venture Holdings will not be affected when the news comes out that the auditors behind the listing are guilty of fabricating documents as a part of their legal defense strategy?

PM Najib, we, the group of six behind this blog, are fully behind you, but we must ask you this painful question. Can you risk having the misdeeds of PwC Malaysia and Johan Raslan costing you crucial votes in GE 13?

Can we risk having the Felda settlers angry with the outcome of the listing simply because investors everywhere start hearing caveat emptor whenever someone whispers PwC Malaysia into their ears?

PM Najib, it all boils down to the simple question of whose interests are more important. That of the hardworking Felda settlers, or of the crooks who walk the halls of PwC Malaysia.