IGNORE the message and focus on damaging the credibility of the messengers.

This strategy sums up the approach of the Najib administration since the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a third civil suit and laid bare the use of funds from 1Malaysia Development Bhd to buy jewellery, a yacht, paintings and high-end properties.

Lawyers and politicians interviewed by The Malaysian Insight were surprised at attempts by ministers to discredit the suit, given that the allegations were detailed in a 251-page document.

“The plaintiff is stated on the first paragraph of the first page, which is that it is the United States government who is bringing the complaint,” said lawyer and human rights activist Ambiga Sreenevasan.

She said although the evidence was still unproven, there was enough prima facie evidence for the court to grant the DoJ the right to seize the assets.

The DoJ is pursuing three forfeiture suits to seize property, artwork and financial assets allegedly bought with stolen 1MDB money.

The latest suit claims that US$540 million (RM2.31 billion) was used to buy among other things, a US$165 million yacht and a US$27.3 million necklace for “the wife of Malaysian Official No 1” (MO1).

Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan had previously confirmed that MO1 is Najib. The prime minister, however, has denied any wrongdoing.

Instead of directly challenging the suits, or starting a fresh probe into the DoJ claims, Prime Minister Najib Razak’s ministers and aides are:

* demanding that the identity of the complainants be revealed (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Rahman);

* claiming that the suit lacks evidence (Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein);

* accusing the opposition of using the DoJ to bring down the Najib administration (Multimedia and Communications Minister Mohd Salleh Said Keruak);

* claiming that the suit contains unproven allegations (Tengku Shariffudin, press secretary to the prime minister).

Lawyer Haniff Khatri said that the statements from the government are meant to mislead the public.

Hanif said in the US judicial system, a forfeiture suit was a quasi-criminal court action that is launched when there is an ongoing criminal investigation.

“If I buy a house with stolen money, a forfeiture suit is launched first to seize my house so that I do not sell the house while a criminal case is brought against me,” said Hanif, who is acting in several 1MDB-related suits.

At the least, the wealth of detail in the suit should have prompted Malaysian authorities to reopen investigations into 1MDB that were declared closed last year, said Ambiga.

Malaysian Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali cleared Najib of wrongdoing in January 2016 after a high-level task force completed its probe into 1MDB.

When the DoJ unveiled the third suit on June 15, Apandi said it still lacked proof.

“Why is the attorney-general rushing to defend the prime minister instead of the people and our assets,” asked Ambiga.

“There is now enough evidence to start a new investigation.”

Pandan MP and long-time 1MDB critic Rafizi Ramli said the overarching goal of the Najib administration is to build a narrative for the public because it is unable to respond to the allegations.

Rahman is trying to build a story line that the opposition were behind the latest DoJ suit.

“He expects the public to buy into his argument that this is a case of foreign interference, which is the narrative the BN is selling because it cannot answer (the suit’s allegations),” Rafizi said. – June 20, 2017.