 |
| Mana lebih tepat, bank atau rafizi? |
Siapa lebih tepat dan benar? Pembaca mahu percaya bank atau seorang ahli politik yang hanya tahu menabur fitnath..Silalah baca artikel yang terbaru ini. Okey..
We thought that
to spice it up a little, we are combining two (2) episodes in this
article which are 1) Rafizi's wild and wanton allegation and 2) First
Hard Evidence (Letter from Public Bank). Enjoy~
RAFIZI’S
WILD AND WANTON LIES
In
thirteen minutes, a web of lies, distortions and misrepresentations were weaved
by Rafizi in wild abandon.
First,
Rafizi said that eight loans had been taken to finance the purchase of the
eight office properties which had a forced sale value of RM9,688,866.
Second,
Rafizi said that Salleh had leveraged the borrowings on a government deposit placed
at the bank.
Third,
Rafizi said the government deposit was at peril because Salleh had defaulted on
the eight loans for a year from March 2011.
Fourth,
Rafizi claimed Salleh was not credit worthy as all Salleh had in his personal
bank account was a mere RM421.
Fifth,
Rafizi said with Salleh having just that paltry sum, the government deposit
used as leverage, was believed in jeopardy. He alluded Salleh would likely
default on the loans.
Sixth,
Rafizi claimed Salleh was not financially sound to have qualified for the eight
loans for the KL Eco City properties and therefore, the leveraging.
FIRST
HARD EVIDENCE
Today I will show further debunks Rafizi’s claims. First, a Public Bank Berhad
correspondence dated 4 January 2012
(see pic) that confirms NO LOANS had been taken from the bank –
In
this letter, readers will note the following (please see the writer’s side
comments typed in blue):
i.
Public Bank Berhad (PBB) had on 23 May 2011, offered loan facilities to Salleh
to finance the KL Eco City office property purchase. Note: the date of letter
of offer.
ii.
It was an offer letter addressed to Salleh and not to NFCorp. Note: NFCorp
was not involved.
iii.
As the personal loan offer was never taken up by Salleh for more than seven
months, PBB cancelled their offer
on 4 January 2012. This letter therefore confirms no loans had been taken by
Salleh from PBB to finance the KL Eco City office property purchase.
iv.
Rafizi brazenly lied that Salleh had taken eight loans for the eight KL Eco
City properties. Since the PBB loan offer was cancelled on 4 January 2012,
Rafizi’s claim does not make for truth. No loans exist.
v.
Rafizi lied when he said the loans were in default. How could loan
repayments enter into default when none were taken in the first place?
vi.
Rafizi lied Salleh had defaulted on the eight loans from March 2011. No
loans exist to enter into default. Also note the PBB letter of offer was made
on 23 May 2011. How could anyone default prior to the date of the offer letter?
Rafizi claims Salleh defaulted from March 2011??
vii.
Rafizi also lied that the government deposit of RM71 million was in jeopardy
because of the default. How could there be any jeopardy when no loans exist
for the eight KL Eco City properties?
viii.
Rafizi lied Salleh was not credit worthy to qualify for loans and that the
eight loans given by the bank were suspect. Again, how could anything be
suspect when no loans exist nor were any taken?
To be continued tonight for more damning revelation of the lies, distortion and misrepresentation of @rafiziramli ..
Fortunately, we have more dirt to share with
our readers of the lies, distortion and misrepresentation of
@rafiziramli .. up till the 13th General Election In sya ALLAH...
Yang benar kita tegakkan..
