In a statement, the anti-graft agency said all investigations undertaken by it were conducted “strictly in accordance with the law, guided by evidence, and carried out independently without fear or favour”.
“Decisions relating to prosecution are subject to prosecutorial discretion and judicial oversight by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the court system, in line with Malaysia’s legal framework, founded on the principle of separation of powers.”
MACC was responding to a series of articles by Bloomberg, including one involving its chief commissioner, Azam Baki, and shares in a financial services company.
It went on to say that the report by Bloomberg contained malicious and unfounded allegations, which were intended to damage the commission’s reputation.
“MACC wishes to emphasise that the commission will not comment on allegations that are defamatory in nature, speculative, or that involve matters which are sub judice or subject to ongoing legal proceedings.”
Bloomberg recently reported that Azam was holding 17.7 million shares in a financial services company, according to a corporate filing with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM).
It reported that the shareholding was disclosed in Velocity Capital Bhd’s annual return lodged on Feb 3 last year and based on the company’s share price at Monday’s close, the stake would be worth about RM800,000.
Azam later clarified that his RM800,000 shareholding in a financial services company was bought last year and disposed of within the same year. He also said he had declared the shares.
He later said that he would send Bloomberg a letter of demand and was prepared to pursue legal action.
Earlier today, Bloomberg ran another story, this time claiming that MACC was in cahoots with other businessmen “to support the interests of private citizens by threatening, arresting and detaining executives, sometimes recommending charges against them”.
MACC went on to say that as an enforcement agency, its functions and roles were governed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.
They are also subject to oversight by five independent oversight bodies.
“Allegations of misconduct cannot be adjudicated through media narratives, but are assessed through the established legal system and due process of justice.”