Serba Dinamik received compound offer from AGC


SERBA Dinamik Holdings Bhd has confirmed that there is a compound offer in regard to its letter of representation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

The integrated oil and gas engineering services provider said it had been advised by its solicitors that it was within the AGC’s discretion in regard to the offer of a compound.

The company was addressing reports on Monday (April 11) by three news outlets in relation to its representation letter that was sent to the AGC.

The reports by The Edge, Focus Malaysia and Malay Mail suggested that a compound would clear or reduce the charges faced by Serba Dinamik’s top executives.

“A compound offer is preceded by a charge and not the other way round. As regards the decision to compound, Section 373 (2) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA) requires the Securities Commission (SC) to seek the AG’s consent and not the other way round.

“What The Edge appears to be suggesting is that the AG should explain an apparent change of mind. The company’s solicitors had advised the company that the suggestion by The Edge is an attempt at scandalising the system of administration of justice,” it said in a statement yesterday.

Serba Dinamik and its senior executives are currently facing charges at four Sessions Courts. 

The charges are related to a false statement over RM6.01 billion revenue recorded by the company in its financial report for the quarter and year ended Dec 31, 2020.

Commenting further, Serba Dinamik said the articles pointed out that the AG alone was vested with prosecutorial discretion. 

Hence, it noted that the company was advised by its solicitors that a representation letter must be directed to the AG.

It said notwithstanding the definition suggested by the Malay Mail article, a letter of representation was to seek the AG’s re-consideration as to the charges already brought.

Serba Dinamik also said the articles stated that the SC and Bursa Malaysia had objected to the AG’s decision.

“If indeed this is true, we view with great concern that this objection is being made public. 

“We would presume that any such communication would have been subject to secrecy obligations and is privileged,” the company said yesterday in a statement.

Furthermore, Serba Dinamik said it had been advised by its solicitors that Bursa’s involvement in making objections to the AG was improper.

It added that Bursa is a private commercial entity, with profit-making objectives, and is not involved with the criminal justice process.

“SC’s involvement of Bursa in making the objections to the AG is also improper, as matters of decision with regard to criminal prosecution is not a subject matter that Bursa should be involved in. 

“SC’s objections to the AG are also highly improper as it suggests an interference with the AG’s constitutional role,” it said.

On receiving the representation from Serba Dinamik, the company said the AGC surely must have recognised the issues with the evidence and charges and proposed a settlement that would be a suitable resolution to the matter.

“This was following consideration of the strength of the evidence to support the charges that were laid, the resources required in multiple courts to pursue all charges, the public interest, and likelihood of success,” it noted.


Monday, August 29, 2022

DNeX posts RM160m 4Q’s net profit

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Investors seek growth thematic than dividend

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Chin Hin’s net profit plunges 56.4%

Monday, December 11, 2017

WCT awarded RM211.5m highway project in KL