Monday, December 17, 2012

Is Haris Ibrahim Defending Blackmailers And Extortionists

Hantu Laut

As the general elections loom near, it's high hunting season in Malaysia . 

From revival of the Altantuya's impalpable ghost, to recycling of the RM40 million mysterious UMNO money cum Musa Aman money and to the incomprehensible SDs of Bala, the oppositions seemed to be running out of construction materials.

Here, a lawyer who sees politics a more rewarding career than practising law came out to side with the blackmailers and extortionists calling the Bar Council to take action against the lawyer that drafted the 2nd SD (Statutory Declaration) of P.Balasubramainiam, the ex-private investigator who claimed he was under duress and was paid to change his first SD, which he also claimed was made under duress.

In the West, where moral principle is much valued than in Malaysia the two clowns and their incredible stories would have been thrown to the wolves.

His excuse for the witch hunt is that the lawyer should have first consulted the private investigator before drafting the SD.

I am not a legally trained person but from my experience and business dealings with many lawyers, it may not be the case, as implied by Haris Ibrahim. A lawyer takes direction from his client, the one who pays his fees.

A lawyer is not a policeman, he merely take instruction from his client, and as long as there is no criminal element to the best of his knowledge he needs not consult any other person other than his client.

It is the same with banks, they only deal with documents and as long as the documents presented to the banks have no discrepancy and comply with terms and conditions of the L/C (Letter of Credit), the bank will pay its customers. It is not the bank responsibility to physically check the cargo and its actual loading on to the ship.

Should the cargo, which should have been coffee beans turned out to be broken bricks, the bank is not responsible. It becomes a fraudulent case for which the relevant law apply and up to the buyer to institute the necessary against the seller.

In international trade mutual trust exists between buyers and sellers but fraud can happen and had happened before. The case I quoted of coffee beans that turned to become broken bricks was a real story. 

It was in 1985, if I well remember, when I was still in the export business and the case was in Indonesia whereas the seller who was supposed to ship coffee beans cheated his European buyer by shipping broken bricks in sacks.

If you had been cheated in a business deal you have legal recourse, why mud-sling  irrelevant matters against people you have been apple-polishing when the going was good and turned against them when the tide was against you. That's, no less a contemptible lowlife.

For Haris Ibrahim, may I suggest he should first establish the fact whether somebody put a gun to Bala's head and forced him to sign the SD in the presence of the lawyer before he jumps the gun and accuses the lawyer concerned of dereliction of duty.


SM said...

Bro HL,

As usual you have turned the "story" around to suit your argument. Not all your "readers" are "yes" men to agree with your "analysis". Some of us although not as experienced or smart as you do have some grey matter.
What Harris is saying is that he wants to investigate the "role" played by this lawyer.
Yes, we all know that in cases like this, the lawyer takes his cue from his client. We also know that in cases like this, not all is what it seems (& we know that in this case there are very "high" people involved). By investigating who this "Tan Sri" Lawyer is, the real Client may be revealed (& we don't want that do we? Because it may come out that a certain "lady", who we will not name for fear of reprisals).

Anonymous said...

I think Haris case is simple.

Bala said he was not the one who came up with the story in the 2nd SD. Deepak said the same thing.

The issue is of the conduct of the lawyer.

In effect if above is true, then the lawyer came up with the story by himself and ask Bala to sign.

As for Bala signing a false SD, yes Bala is guilty of that and the law should take its course.

But the lawyer himself by concocting the whole story is also wrong and as thus the law should also take its course against him if gulkity.

Just because Bala is guilty doesnt mean the 2nd lawyer is innocent himself.

Ada faham?