Say No To Hudud

Thursday, March 1, 2012

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment