A LEBANESE suing Rosmah Mansor for the return of RM60 million in jewels is a legitimate businessman with an outlet under his name in Star Hill Gallery in Kuala Lumpur.

The outlet is a stone’s throw from where Malaysian authorities seized more than RM1.1 billion in cash and jewellery allegedly linked to former prime minister Najib Razak two months ago.

Global Royalty Trading SAL is part of Samer Halimeh’s empire with outlets in New York, London, Cannes and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. He is named as the salesman who sent the jewellery to Rosmah, wife of Najib.

The Lebanese jeweller, Global Royalty Trading SAL, is a legitimate business and not a front for other businesses, said lawyer David Gurupatham, who is representing the firm now suing Rosmah.

Gurupatham said Samer was named as the salesman in the statement of claim filed on June 26 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. 

“The jeweller is well known,” Gurupatham told The Malaysian Insight, adding that the jeweller’s method of business was not out of the norm. 

“I mean if you look at social media. He’s there. Whether he used a particular vehicle to do the transaction or seal the deal. That’s quite normal, you see. So, it’s certainly not a front. 

“At the end of the day, it’s obvious this is not a front because you’re talking about 44 pieces of jewellery, out of 12,00 pieces that were seized. It’s a drop of water in the ocean,” he said. 

Gurupatham maintained that the firm is real even if its services are marketed to a more exclusive clientele. 

“No one does a company search on Google, you know what I mean?

“The public perception is ‘hey, I go into the mall and the jeweller should be there and he should be famous’. In this instance, it’s a very personalised couture type of service. 

“And when you have personalities that sell couture-type pieces, very exclusive pieces, they are going to use vehicles for transactions. You are not looking for a particular jeweller with a particular name. It’s a company and it’s a well-known company.”

The jeweller is suing Rosmah after a consignment of 44 pieces of jewellery comprising a tiara, diamond necklaces, rings, bracelets and earrings that were sent to her in February were seized in government raids beginning May 16. 

Each item costs between US$124,000 and US$925,000 with a total value of US$14.8 million (RM60 million). 

Below are excerpts of the interview: 

TMI: Your firm filed the suit against Rosmah on June 26 and the government has applied to be intervener. What is the next step?

Gurupatham: We will wait for the defence to be filed. Once the defendant (Rosmah) files her defence, then we will put a reply and that should close the appeal. And then we move into case management (on July 27). 

In the meantime, we have an application by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to intervene in the proceedings. My instructions are that we have no objections. In fact, we welcome the attorney-general intervening into this action. 

TMI: Can you comment on the government’s role as intervener?

Gurupatham: To intervene, you are not named as party in the suit, but have a direct right to enter the suit because you have some right that is going to be decided in the case. 

In this case, the attorney-general is of the view that the government of Malaysia has the right to intervene. And our position is we agree, because at the end of the day, we have pleaded in the statement of claim that the goods were seized.

So purely on the law, we should have no objections. I think the attorney-general has the right to intervene, at least on that ground. 

TMI: Can you describe the consignment process. Is there collateral involved?

Gurupatham: If you look at what’s out there in the media, they’ve done some research on this, they’ve put out what kind of clientele that the plaintiff has.

If you look at some of the videos that I’ve seen, you can certainly say that the clientele are not the average guy that walks into a jewellery shop at the mall.

We have obviously pleaded in our statement of claim that the defendant is a long-standing client. Obviously, when you are a long-standing client, you have certain privileges.

To put this into perspective, the defendant would have a certain credibility in the market. I mean 44 pieces of jewellery. What is the value? RM60 million? How many pieces were seized? 12,000?

To put this in perspective, someone who is able to acquire this amount of jewellery would certainly be accorded a certain level of credit.

So, for example, if I were to go to the bank and I were to ask for an OD (overdraft) of RM10 million, the bank may say no. But if it’s someone of substance and they asked for RM100 million, it’s likely to be granted. That’s the way confidence is. 

TMI: There was no collateral involved? 

Gurupatham: I’m not saying, normally. I’m saying in this transaction, there was no collateral.  

There has been talk that questions the legitimacy of this firm. Is the firm real? Is it based in Beirut? 

There’s no doubt about it. At the end of the day, the company is registered. No one does a company search on Google, you know what I mean? You go to the company, you get the company search and it’s done. 

I’m quite satisfied, according to our professional practice and what our requirements are, to be assured that I have knowledge of the client. That the client is legitimate.

The public perception is ‘hey, I go into the mall and the jeweller should be there and he should be famous’. In this instance, it’s a very personalised couture type of service. 

And when you have personalities that sell couture-type pieces, very exclusive pieces, they are going to use vehicles for transactions.

You are not looking for a particular jeweller with a particular name. It’s a company and it’s a well-known company.

The jeweller is well known. If you want to do a search on the company, you don’t Google. You go to Beirut to do a search. 

TMI: What is the jeweller’s name?

Gurupatham: It’s in the statement of claim. The name is there. We had to plead it in a way that he’s a salesman because he did the transaction. I think you can refer to it there (diamond trader Samer Halimeh was named as the salesman in the statement of claim).

TMI: So, this is not a front for another company?

Gurupatham: I think it’s the other way around. The jeweller is there. I mean if you look at social media. He’s there. Whether he used a particular vehicle to do the transaction or seal the deal. That’s quite normal, you see. So, it’s certainly not a front. 

At the end of the day, it’s obvious this is not a front because you’re talking about 44 pieces of jewellery, out of 12,00 pieces that were seized. The 44 pieces do not in any way can have an effect on the overall investigation.

It’s pointless if my client wants to put up a front. Forty-four pieces are not going to make a difference. It’s a drop of water in the ocean. – July 18, 2018.