A TOTAL of 54 transactions, each below the threshold of AU$10,000 (RM30,210). In any country in the world, it would surely raise eyebrows, let alone suspicion. 

More so if its into the account of a policeman. 

Commissioner Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Mohd is a top police officer, not any ordinary policeman. He was Johor police chief and now heads the country’s Criminal Investigations Department. 

Not only that, he told Australian authorities that he would not claim the AU$320,000 (RM970,000) they had seized. Despite it being from the sale of his house and was to finance his children’s education. 

Malaysian police have cleared him of any wrongdoing while Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi put it down to naivety.

The spotlight fell on Wan Ahmad last week after the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reported that Australian Federal Police (AFP) had seized the money after it suspected his Sydney bank account held laundered money or proceeds from crime.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Paul Low Seng Kuan, who oversees the country’s fight against graft, said the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission should investigate this case for “improper conduct”. His views were shared by several civil society groups.

Below are some of the facts of the case, the statements by Malaysian authorities, and the questions that remain unanswered:

SMH had reported that Wan Ahmad opened a Commonwealth Bank “Goal Saver” account in 2011, listing his address at Bankstown and then Glebe in Sydney. Since 2001, Wan Ahmad had visited Australia nine times, always on a tourist visa, often for less than a week and, sometimes, with lots of cash.

Across three trips in 2011 and 2012, he declared AU$112,000 (RM338,357) to Australian Customs. He opened the bank account during one of his trips using his own name at the Commonwealth Bank’s Haymarket branch in Sydney’s central business district. The money was allegedly for his son’s aviation studies.

In December 2012, a day after he arrived in Australia, AU$30,000(RM90,631) was deposited into his account from different locations namely  Merrylands, Ryde, Strathfield and Burwood. An amount of AU$8,000 (RM24,167) was withdrawn at Haymarket.

Inspector-General of Police Mohamad Fuzi Harun issued a statement the day the SMH report was published. He defended the CID director saying that an internal inquiry was held and Wan Ahmad was cleared of any wrongdoing. The IGP also said that the money was from the sale of Wan Ahmad’s house in Shah Alam. The house was sold for RM700,000 (AU$260,770).

QUESTIONS: Where did Wan Ahmad get the RM338,357 which he declared to Australian customs in 2011 and 2012? Was this amount also from the sale of his house? Who deposited the money into Wan Ahmad’s accounts? And why were the deposits made at various branches across Australia?

The flow of money did not stop there. An affidavit sighted by SMH further revealed money again started to flow into the account in 2016, after it was dormant for years.

This time, deposits were made at five different states – from Biloela in Queensland to Devonport in northern Tasmania to Lakemba in Sydney’s west and Melbourne, six days after Wan Ahmad visited Australia in September 2016.

There were 54 transactions, each deposit below the threshold of AU$10,000(RM30,210). Anything above that amount will get the attention of the Australian authorities. In just one month, the amount that was deposited into Wan Ahmad’s account was AU$290,000(RM875,961). The money was allegedly for his daughter’s master’s programme.

SMH also reported that investigators found that Wan Ahmad, who was then the Johor police chief, had entrusted the transfer of his money to a close friend, Seenisirajudeen Mohamad Basith, an Indian national who has since returned to India.

QUESTIONS: Who is Seenisirajudeen Mohamad Basith? Why didn’t Wan Ahmad simply get the money transferred from a Malaysian bank to his bank in Sydney? What was he trying to avoid? And again, was the RM875,961 also from the sale of the house?

SMH also reported that Wan Ahmad Najmuddin did not want to his money back for the simple reason that court action was too expensive.

QUESTIONS: Who would simply want to give up close to RM1 million? How is his daughter’s studies being funded now? Will her studies have to be postponed?

According to a source familiar with such transactions, people would avoid the conventional way of money transfer (bank-to-bank) as large amounts, like in the case of Wan Ahmad, would get the attention of Bank Negara Malaysia and various government agencies.

“There will be too many questions to answer. Where did the money come from? Why is it being sent overseas? Proof and documentation must be provided.

“There is just too much hassle and red-tape involved. So, to circumvent all that, they get a cash-rich friend staying in that country to make the deposits into that account.

“The sum involved, will be paid by the sender to his friend here. Simple, no questions asked,” the source said.

In defending the CID director, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who is also deputy prime minister, had also said Wan Ahmad was somewhat naive with Australian laws when he transferred money to the country to fund his children’s studies.

“The issue concerning the transfer of funds surfaced in 2016. Wan Ahmad had presented his explanation to me on the matter and I accepted his explanation. I am certain in his honesty.

MACC also said there was no necessity to investigate Wan Ahmad as he had been cleared of any wrongdoing by police’s internal inquiry.

The Malaysian Insight has attempted to contact Wan Ahmad several times but has received no response. – March 6, 2018.