According to the document sighted by FMT, the company had signed a lease-to-own agreement rather than a common sales and purchase agreement, which explains the 50% deposit, instead of the usual 10% deposit which critics have questioned.

It said it was under such an arrangement that the company paid a RM120 million deposit, with the balance of RM82.5 million to be paid over 10 years in 120 monthly instalments of RM687,500 each.

The deal was criticised in the A-G’s report and by the Public Accounts Committee last week. The audit report said the management of the deposit payments was “unorganised”, with HRD Corp’s investment panel only obtaining approval for the deposit after the payment was made.

However, the document revealed a timeline of the entire exercise, detailing that it was presented to the board, and approved by the investment panel of HRD Corp.

HRD Corp had sought to purchase the two corporate towers to serve as its headquarters in 2021. The deal was discontinued after the vendor was unable to deliver vacant possession and transfer the title.

The RM120 million deposit was then refunded to the company, plus RM3.2 million in interest.

Another issue highlighted by the A-G’s report was regarding an “irregular” payment of the deposit to a legal firm, and that it was not in line with the clauses in the sales and purchase agreement. The A-G’s report said payment was made to a different lawyer from the one mentioned in the agreement.

In the reply document, it was pointed out that the vendor had changed its lawyers some time during the exercise. An official letter presented in the document indicated that the vendor had instructed for the payment to be made to this new lawyer.

HRD Corp said the vendor had the prerogative to appoint any lawyer it wanted, and that this did not alter the fundamental aspects of the terms of their agreement in any way.