KUALA LUMPUR: 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) and other plaintiffs in the US$346mil (RM1.6bil) lawsuit against Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor are bound by a previous court’s decision that the luxury goods within her possession were not proceeds from illegal activity.
Rosmah contended that the plaintiff’s legal action was impeded by the principle of res judicata whereby the same matter cannot be litigated twice.
She said this in her statement of defence, filed at the High Court on Thursday.
The previous court decision mentioned by Rosmah is on a forfeiture proceedings by the government involving luxury goods and assets seized in a raid on two properties in a condominium at Pavilion, Kuala Lumpur, in 2018.
She said the government had published a notice in August 2019 summoning third parties who had a stake in the properties to appear in court to show why it cannot be confiscated.
“The plaintiffs failed to appear to express any objections.”
Rosmah said the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit against her were blocked by the principle of estoppel from litigating the civil action and to demand reliefs from her.
On May 9, 1MDB, SRC, and nine others (including four 1MDB subsidiaries) filed the lawsuit against Rosmah seeking US$346mil belonging to them.
The plaintiffs claimed that Rosmah, the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, had used the funds from the companies to purchase luxury items such as jewellery, watches and handbags.
Apart from 1MDB, SRC, and the four companies, other plaintiffs are Affinity Equity International Partners Ltd, Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd, Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd and Brightstone Jewellery Ltd.
The plaintiffs named Rosmah as the first defendant and Shabnam Naraindas Daswani (also known as Natasha Mirpuri) as the second defendant.
They claim that Shabnam, who is a fashion designer based in Singapore, had purchased or procured the luxury items on behalf of Rosmah.
The plaintiffs claim that funds from 1MDB and its subsidiaries were channelled to various offshore entities – including Affinity Equity, Alsen Chance, Blackrock Commodities, Blackstone Asia and Brightstone Jewellery – before being paid out to 48 different vendors based in 14 jurisdictions for the luxury goods.
They further claimed the goods sought were “traceable substitute” of 1MDB and its subsidiaries’ trust property, thus the plaintiffs have an equitable proprietary interest in the luxury goods.
They are seeking a court declaration that they have equitable proprietary interest in the goods and traceable proceeds in the hands of Rosmah as well as an order for Rosmah to pay the first until the sixth plaintiffs a sum of US$346mil.
