Clear signs of fraud in Felda land deal

Amin Iskandar Amin Iskandar Updated 6 years ago · Published on 28 Dec 2017 7:00AM · 6 Comments

Rubbish left along the corridor of the Anjung Felda building in Jalan Perumahaan Gurney, off Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur, yesterday after the premises were vacated. This is supposed to be the site of Felda’s new towers. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Hasnoor Hussain, December 28, 2017.

THERE are clear signs of fraud in Felda’s Jalan Semarak land deal, said a top property lawyer, as investigations intensify into how the beleaguered agency lost ownership of a prime piece of land in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysian property lawyers (HartaGuam) deputy president Salkukhairi Abd Shukor said this was because the developer of the four parcels of land had abused the power of attorney granted to it by Felda.

The developer, appointed by Felda subsidiary Felda Investment Corporation (FIC), transferred ownership of the land to Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd in which it had an interest.

The transfer of ownership did not have to occur as the developer had only been appointed by Felda to build Kuala Lumpur Vertical City (KLVC), said Salkukhairi.

KLVC is being built on land that houses Felda’s old headquarters and two of its buildings, Anjung Felda and Wisma Felda. Once completed, the project is supposed to include the agency’s iconic tower, known as KLVC Tower1A.

Another sign of fraud was the claim that no money changed hands during the alleged transfer, he said.

“According to Felda chairman (Shahrir Samad), Felda has up to this point not received a sen from the transfer.

“How could a land owner transfer ownership without any value consideration? That’s where I believe the fraud is,” Salkukhairi told The Malaysian Insight.

Lawyer Salkukhairi Abd Shukor says it is suspicious when no money changed hands in the Jalan Semarak land deal. – The Malaysian Insight pic, December 28, 2017.

It has been reported that the land, which totals 66,000 sq m in central Kuala Lumpur, was worth RM270 million when its ownership was transferred.  

However, Shahrir reportedly said Felda did not gain a sen from the transaction which occurred in December 2015.

The decision to appoint KLVC’s developer and to give it power of attorney was done by FIC in June 2014.

However, FIC only informed the Felda board of the decision three months later and asked for retrospective approval.   

Police have opened investigations into the allegations and plan to haul up former Felda chairman Mohd Isa Samad for questioning.

Isa was both Felda and FIC chairman while the deal took place.   

To reclaim its property, Salkukhairi said, Felda would have to file a civil suit and get a court declaration that the transfer was illegal.

“Once that is done, the court can order the Land Office to cancel the current ownership and return the land to Felda.”

Previously, legal expert Prof Salleh Buang said the National Land Code 1965 allowed for parties to contest the status of a property’s ownership if there were elements of impropriety in its transfer.

Salleh said this must be done before the land is sold off to a third party, who can be classified as a bona fide purchaser (BFP). If that happens, Felda can no longer challenge and reclaim the land.

Shahrir, the Felda chairman, said caveats have been put on all four parcels to prevent them from being resold or transferred again.

A portrait of Prime Minister Najib Razak abandoned in Anjung Felda, Jalan Perumahaan Gurney, off Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur, after the building was vacated recently. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Hasnoor Hussain, December 28, 2017.

The case of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit set a precedent for those who had lost ownership of their land through fraud, Salkukhairi said.

In that case, Boonsom, who had been living in Thailand, lost ownership of two parcels of land in Tanjung Bungah due to a fraudulent transaction involving an imposter in 1989.

After a series of court battles between Boonsom’s family and Adorna, the Federal Court ruled in 2004 in favour of Adorna – the company which obtained ownership of the land through the imposter.

But in 2010, the same court ruled that the 2004 decision was “erroneous, unjust and a breach of Malaysia’s obligations” under the Asean treaty.

In the Felda case, Synergy Promenade is not considered a “deferred purchaser” where it can be protected like a bona fide purchaser, said Salkukhairi.

“Going by the Federal Court’s decision in the Adorna case, Felda’s rights as the owner will be protected as current laws give more rights to original owners who have been cheated,” said Salkukhairi. – December 28, 2017.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • At most they can prove that the fraud was partly committed by Synergy Promenade and not KLVCC. KLVCC may not be proven the guilty party.. There may not be a full remedy and Felda is looking at tens of millions, if not hundred million in losses still..

    Posted 6 years ago by Bigjoe Lam · Reply

  • Sometimes it is better for so-called lawyers not to shoot from the mouths without having the details. I have seen JV with Power of Attorney to transfer land to the JV partner and no consideration is paid to the landowner. These are all commercial terms and not legal terms. The best is to keep quiet and let the police investigate if it is a fraud case of transferring the land or just a commercial term of the JV. Even MACC opined there is no case and I am sure they know how to read the JVA.
    My take on this is that this is something political brewing big time in UMNO and there appeared
    to be cracks in the top 2.

    Posted 6 years ago by Can Lim · Reply

  • If Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd’s role is only to construct the building, then it should be called the contractor, not the developer. Who pays for the construction? Who owns the property upon completion? What are the exact terms of the contract?
    The contract between Felda Investment Corporation and Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd must be disclosed so that the facts can be sorted out for ascertaining any impropriety

    Posted 6 years ago by Kim quek · Reply

  • Sadden breaking news. Ultimately, we have to get our fact right before making any comment. I agreed we have to look into terms stipulated on the contract prior making

    Posted 6 years ago by Abdul Rahman Abdul Razak · Reply

  • As matter of fact, we have to get our fact right or read the fine line stipulated on the contract prior making any comment. Yes, by looking atbthe surface of the story , tons of assumption but need evaluation before conclusion.

    Posted 6 years ago by Abdul Rahman Abdul Razak · Reply

  • Why no much secrecy over land deals with Chinese parties to bail out 1MDB? It stinks to high heaven. This is why Felda type scandals will keep happening again and again. It's systematic, cultural.

    Posted 6 years ago by Bigjoe Lam · Reply