Jasmine Loo, a former general counsel with the state investment arm, said she had been advised that the law prohibits her from answering such questions.
Loo was testifying for the plaintiffs, 1MDB and its three subsidiaries, 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd, 1MDB Energy Ltd and 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd.
They are suing Riza Aziz and two companies linked to him – Red Granite Pictures Incorporated (RGP) and Red Granite Capital Ltd (RGC) – for misappropriating funds amounting to US$148 million.
Asked by lawyer Shafee Abdullah, representing the defendants, if she was a protected witness following her return to the country last year, Loo responded: “I apologise. It’s inappropriate (for me) to comment.”
Shafee: I am not asking about anything confidential. You are produced in an open court and not hidden behind a screen where (only) your voice can be heard.
Loo: I have been advised by my lawyers that the law does not allow me to answer this question.
Shafee: Advised by whom?
Loo: A lawyer from (law firm) AmerBon Advocates.
AmerBon is holding a watching brief for Loo, the plaintiffs’ second witness at the trial.
Last week, Judicial Commissioner Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan warned the media against taking photographs of Loo.
Asked by Shafee whether the Swiss authorities were actively seeking to extradite her to face charges there, Loo said she did not know.
The witness also disagreed with Shafee that she had struck deals under which Malaysian law enforcement agencies agreed to drop all criminal prosecution against her or 1MDB withdrew a civil suit against her.
Shafee: Are you aware that the Witness Protection Act is favourable because the Malaysian authorities will not send you to Switzerland?
Loo: I disagree.
Shafee: Do you agree that you settled a civil suit with the US Department of Justice but not a criminal case?
Loo: Yes.
Loo also admitted to being aware of the conviction by a court in Switzerland of Swiss-British national Patrick Mahony and Swiss-Saudi Tarek Obaid, two executives at an oil exploration company, PetroSaudi.
It was reported Obaid was sentenced to seven years in prison while Mahony received a sentence of six years for embezzling over US$1.8 billion in 2009.
In the present suit, the plaintiffs claim the funds had been siphoned out of the company through two companies linked to fugitive financier Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low.
They said the monies were misappropriated for gambling activities, to fund movies produced by RGP, and to purchase real estate and movie memorabilia.
1MDB claims that between 2011 and 2012, US$10 million was siphoned out to the defendants via Good Star, a company owned by Low, through a layering exercise.
1MDB had raised US$1 billion in 2009, of which US$700 million went to Good Star in the belief that it was a subsidiary of 1MDB Petro Saudi Ltd, a joint venture company.
Good Star then paid US$10 million to a bank account belonging to RGP which had Riza as its signatory.
Another US$238 million was also siphoned out in 2012, when 1MDB engaged Goldman Sachs to arrange and underwrite two separate bonds amounting to US$3 billion raised to acquire certain energy assets.
The statement claimed that after 1MDB or its subsidiaries had received the proceeds from the bonds, Low caused the siphoning out of a substantial portion of the net proceeds of the bonds to a Swiss bank account belonging to an entity called Aabar Investments PJS Ltd.
It said Low set up an account at BSI Bank in Lugano, Switzerland, in the name of Aabar-BVI, a fictitious company, and arranged for the fraudulent transfer of around US$1.367 billion from 1MDB to Aabar-BVI.
The US$238 million was then sent to the defendants between June 18 and Nov 14, 2012.
1MDB claims that Riza, who controlled the two Red Granite companies, which produced the Hollywood hit The Wolf of Wall Street, knew or ought to have known that the funds had been misappropriated and used for their benefit or their associates.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants are liable to account for the funds misappropriated from 1MDB.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs are seeking a repayment of the funds misappropriated from it based on unjust enrichment.
Hearing continues.