01-20-2022, 09:22 AM
![[Image: 6b6c4ab277c07739c9a06767a78e686e.jpg=s800]](https://icf.newscdn.net/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2022/01/6b6c4ab277c07739c9a06767a78e686e.jpg=s800)
Dr Raman Letchumanan: The probe by the Securities Commission (SC) only came about because MACC chief Azam Baki, in his defence to the whistleblower’s expose, said the shares were bought by his brother using his account. This was a violation of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act (Sicda) if established.
If SC says there is no conclusive evidence that section was violated, then by inference, Azam is the beneficial owner by legally trading in his own account.
Therefore, Azam lied to the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board that his brother used his account to buy the shares and the shares belonged to his brother.
Consequently, the claim by Azam that he had transferred the shares to his brother is also suspect. If he had indeed done that, Azam probably wanted to exonerate himself from explaining how he had the means to buy the shares and was in violation of civil service regulations.
So, it is back to square one on the conflict-of-interest charges. Furthermore, it now appears Azam seemed to lie to escape any further probes. As I see it, the SC decision only leads to further investigation on possible violations of other laws and regulations.
- More -