The anti-graft agency also dismissed Chai’s claim that it made no attempt to contact him.
MACC said its investigating officers made several attempts to contact Chai, who is working in the UK, before the notice was issued.
It also said one of its investigating officers had tried to contact Chai via WhatsApp since Feb 24 to a phone number registered to him but received no response.
“After several attempts to contact him without any response, the investigating officer’s number was eventually blocked by Chai’s telephone number on Feb 26.
“Therefore, the claim that MACC did not attempt to contact him before issuing the notice is completely untrue,” it said in a statement this evening.
Earlier, Chai said the notice included the address of his childhood home, where his parents live, exposing them to unnecessary danger – something he said he “will never forgive the authorities for”.
He also said the public search appears intended to portray him as a fugitive with something to hide.
MACC responded by saying that attempts to portray normal investigative procedures as acts of persecution against individuals are unwarranted and made in bad faith.
“If Chai has nothing to hide, he should present himself and cooperate with the investigation,” it said, adding that he should not “offer unreasonable excuses or create negative perceptions of enforcement agencies”.
MACC also said it strictly adheres to the principle of the presumption of innocence, meaning that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.
“Being called to assist in an investigation does not imply that the person is guilty or has committed an offence,” it said.
Chai previously served as a special functions officer to Rafizi when the Pandan MP was the economy minister. He left the ministry after Rafizi resigned last May.
MACC’s notice did not specify the reason for summoning Chai, but it came amid an investigation into alleged misconduct involving a RM1.1 billion government deal with Arm Holdings signed in March last year.
In his statement, Chai criticised an online campaign that portrayed him as “Jho Low 2.0”. He described the campaign as racially charged and an attempt to divert attention from the lack of evidence against him.