RIZA Aziz is not offering to pay any new amount in his deal with the prosecution to return US$108 million (RM475 million) of taxpayers’ funds, said former attorney-general Tommy Thomas.

Thomas said those monies are from assets seized by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ).

“Riza is not offering to pay any new money or monies from any source other than DOJ seized assets.

“By personal diplomacy, we established strong relations with DoJ after I took office. They have returned billions of ringgit, and more monies may be released in future by the DoJ,” Thomas said in a statement today in response to an earlier statement by current A-G Idrus Harun.

Idrus said yesterday that following the deal with Riza, the stepson of former prime minister Najib Razak, Malaysia is expected to recover about US$108 million.

“With the greatest of respect, this is a red herring. The purpose of prosecuting Riza was not to strengthen our chances of securing monies from DoJ.

“DOJ would have returned these monies in any event because it belongs to Malaysia and was stolen from Malaysia,” said Thomas.

Thomas said Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for returning monies that are not his.

“Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but terrible for Malaysia.”

Riza was facing five charges for receiving proceeds of an unlawful activity totalling US$248 million linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad between April 2011 and November 2012.

However, as part of the agreement, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Thursday allowed an application by the prosecution for a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) against Riza if he returns overseas assets allegedly linked to 1MDB, estimated at US$107.3 million.

This is in addition to the US$57 million which was forfeited earlier in April 2019 from Red Granite Pictures, a company co-owned by Riza, the funds of which were traceable to 1MDB.

Thomas, however, described the deal as bizarre and questioned the timing of the DNAA.

In both civil and criminal proceedings which proceed to trial, a plaintiff or the prosecution loses substantial leverage over the adverse party if it withdraws court proceeding before the terms of settlement are completely performed.

“This is elementary. Hence, one needs to question why Riza has been given a DNAA so prematurely.” – May 18, 2020.