IN an infamous post on his Facebook page, a young man, a central figure in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) saga, apparently wrote “I felt the earth move under my feet”, after US$700 million (RM2.93 billion) was banked into an account of which he is a signatory.

It is understandable if the board of directors of Astro Malaysia Holdings Bhd felt the earth move under their feet, too, on February 23 when media reports emerged about the ongoing 1MDB trial of a former Goldman Sachs employee in a United States Federal Court.

On that day – to quote from publicly available report – star prosecution witness Tim Leissner revealed in a court that his then Malaysian lover, who was at that time CEO of Astro Malaysia Holdings Bhd (Astro Holdings), had threatened to expose his involvement with 1MDB. To keep her from doing so, he used money he received from 1MDB to buy a US$10 million house in London for her.

Leissner pleaded guilty in August 2018 to a count of conspiracy to violate US anti-bribery laws and to conspiring to launder money. He has not been sentenced and is free on US$20 million bond but was ordered to forfeit US$44 million.

Unfortunately, there were no details as to whether the US$44 million to be forfeited from him as ordered by the judge in the US court includes the US$10 million he paid for the house in London for his ex-lover. His guilty plea and cooperation in the case against the former employee were meant to reduce his sentence – likely to be announced later this year.

There is always a possibility that Leissner will say and do almost anything to get what he wants, especially when what he wants is to reduce his sentence. His willingness to do so includes not only spilling the beans on everyone, but also lying, committing perjury, manufacturing evidence, soliciting others to corroborate their lies with more lies, and double-crossing anyone with whom he comes into contact, including the prosecutor.

It is the jury and the presiding judge in this case that will decide the truthfulness and accuracy of his statements made in the ongoing proceedings. Nevertheless, it is presumed that he has been advised and cautioned that any fabrication for the purpose of deception illegally created for the purpose of influencing the outcome in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department is a federal crime under a number of circumstances in the US, and may result in an enhanced sentence under the US Sentencing Guidelines for the offence that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, punishable by imprisonment and fine.

On the other hand, the public can expect the prosecutors and investigators in this matter to take all reasonable measures to safeguard against such a possibility.

With this testimony, Astro Holdings’ board of directors has a moral and fiduciary obligation to the investing public to initiate a complete review of all work undertaken and performed by their former CEO when she was employed there.

If the scope is too wide, the board can narrow the scope to reviewing the appointment of Goldman Sachs, which was hired as one of the joint bookrunners for the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in 2012 and other advisory work, if any, where the said bank was appointed by Astro Holdings. Obviously, the investing public and the capital market prefer a more encompassing scope for the review.

If what Leissner alleged – that he was worried about his ex-lover exposing his involvement in 1MDB when said person had no active role nor could she influence the public’s opinion with her exposé – the board needs to assure the investing public that when she was helming Astro Holdings, she wielded limited management responsibilities and power, including but not limited to the appointment of consultants and investment bankers to advise the company on its financing and corporate finance needs.

The matter of 1MDB was first raised, as documented, in Parliament in 2010 by an opposition MP who questioned the veracity of the profit numbers reported by the entity. Public brows were only raised in 2013 when in a period of less than few years, the company underwent a change of external auditors – three in total – accompanied by a submission to the Companies Commission of Malaysia seeking an extension of the statutory deadline for the filing of its statutory annual returns.

Thus, was Leissner really worried about his role in the scandal being exposed in 2013, when he claimed he then bought a house in London for US$10 million, or was he worried about something else not disclosed in the public hearing?

As Goldman Sachs admitted in 2020 that its Malaysia unit had paid bribes and agreed to pay fines in the US, Malaysia and elsewhere, the Astro Holdings board should also declare publicly that it will cooperate in any investigation launched by local authorities to review the appointment of Goldman Sachs as an adviser in the takeover of Malakoff Bhd, the 2009 IPO of Maxis, and Goldman Sachs’ application and approval to start operations for fund management and corporate finance in the Malaysian capital market, all of which were apparently undertaken during Leissner’s tenure overseeing the desk in Malaysia for Goldman Sachs.

As people who claim to be close to the founder of Astro Holdings state, he doesn’t like to be in the limelight, which explains why not many know about him. And it looks like he would not want to be thrust into the limelight arising from the personal life of one of his former employees, nor for the governance of Astro Holdings or his other companies to be questioned. – February 24, 2022.

FLK reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.