Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How told the High Court that the prosecution was served with the motion and a supporting afidavit earlier this week.
“We need to study the application to intervene by Goldman Sachs and respond accordingly,” Law told Justice Jamil Hussin at the High Court today.
The matter was called up for case management after the MACC applied to have the case brought against lawyer Chetan Jethwani and law firm Chetan & Co transferred to another court.
The anti-graft body wants the matter to be heard by Justice K Muniandy, who is presiding over a similar action brought against lawyer Rosli Dahlan and his firm Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS).
Chetan and his legal firm represented Goldman Sachs in the settlement agreement.
Lawyer K Kumaraendran, who appeared for Chetan, did not object to an adjournment of transfer application pending disposal of Goldman Sachs’s application.
Counsel Krishna Dallumah, who is appearing for Goldman Sachs in the intervener proceedings, said his client wants to be made a party as its interests were at stake.
Jamil fixed Jan 8 to hear Goldman Sachs’s application for leave to intervene.
On Oct 11, MACC filed two motions: one against Rosli and RDS, and the other against Chetan and his legal firm.
The MACC wants both law firms to provide documents in connection with the settlement between the bank and the government over 1MDB’s US$6.5 billion bond issue.
It said both lawyers had refused to allow its officers to search for documents during “visits” on Oct 6.
The lawyers also said the documents were privileged communication between client and solicitor.
They also claimed that MACC must obtain an order from the High Court under Section 46(2) of the MACC Act, read together with Section 126(1) of the Evidence Act, to compel disclosure.
However, MACC denies the applicability of the provisions in the circumstances of the case.
In separate affidavits to support each application, MACC investigating officer Sabri Latif said RDS was appointed legal adviser to 1MDB and was involved in negotiations that led to the settlement agreement inked with Goldman Sachs on Aug 18, 2020.
Meanwhile, Muniandy has fixed Jan 17 to hear Rosli’s application to strike out MACC’s motion for documents.
In the application filed in the High Court registry last week, Rosli is seeking general, exemplary and punitive damages from MACC for allegedly abusing the processes of the court and for defaming him.
Rosli said MACC lacks the legal standing to file the application and obtain the orders sought against him.
The lawyer said the application amounts to an abuse of process and infringes on his constitutional rights not to be subject to oppressive and vexatious criminal proceedings.
Lawyer Harvinderjeet Singh represented Rosli, while Law appeared for the prosecution.