Lukas Straumann, Executive Director of Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF), was cross-examined on 8 January 2018 in the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario, Canada. This was the first time the BMF leader had to try to support his serious allegations against Sakto Corporation while under oath. 
See the "Canadian Court Case" page for background information. 
Below are some key admissions made during that 6 hour event which completely discredit BMF’s allegations against Sakto.
All referenced quotations on this page are excerpts from the official court transcript, and the full transcript is publicly available.

---

No action by any law enforcement agency

Lukas Straumann admits that not one of BMF’s complaints has led to action by any law enforcement agency.

6     1034.        MS. VERMETTE:     So, ultimately none of the
7                      complaints you have made to the various
8                       authorities have resulted in a prosecution?
9                      MR. STRAUMANN:     Correct.

---

Straumann Not an Expert

​Lukas Straumann, Executive Director of the BMF, has sworn an affidavit making serious allegations of corruption and money laundering, but is not an expert in either field.

13      26.              MS. VERMETTE:     So, I understand,
14                       Counsel, that Mr. Straumann is not being
15                       tendered as an expert in this case?
16                       MR. CAYLOR:     Correct.

---

 Serious Allegations and Errors

Lukas Straumann acknowledges the serious nature of the allegation he has made in his affidavit.  This is particularly notable in light of the serious “errors” he admits to having made.

​1      BY MS. VERMETTE:
2      72.              Q.      And in this proceeding, and in your
3              affidavit, Mr. Straumann, you make very serious
4              allegations of wrongdoing.
5                       A.      Yes. 
6      73.              Q.      And you make, among other things,
7              allegations of corruption in Malaysia?
8                       A.      Yes. 
9      74.              Q.      And allegations of money laundering
10              in Canada?
11                       A.      Yes. 
12      75.              Q.      And you will agree with me, Mr.
13              Straumann, that when you make serious allegations
14              like this due diligence is required?
15                       A.      Correct. 
16      76.              Q.      And it is required because
17              allegations of wrongdoing can have serious
18              consequences for the people who are the subject of
19              those allegations?
20                       A.      Yes. 
21      77.              Q.      So, it is important to take steps to
22              ensure that all statements are correct and accurate?
23                       A.      Correct.  I agree.

---

Abandons "Money Laundering" Claim

Lukas Straumann had provided sworn evidence that Ross Boyert had been actively involved in transferring money from Malaysia to the US on behalf of Taib, which was said to be clear evidence of money laundering.  Under cross-examination, Lukas Straumann admits that he has no evidence of this fact and asks that his affidavit be corrected to state that Boyert, a property manager in San Francisco, was simply involved in generating wealth.  This admission completely undermines the BMF assertion of “money laundering.”  

5     167.             Q.     Yes.  Okay.  If you could please go
6             back to your affidavit at tab B, volume 1.  And go
7             to page 44, please.  Okay, paragraph 75.  You say in
8             the last sentence:
9                      "...As noted previously, Boyert was a
10                      whistleblower who worked closely for Taib
11                      in setting up his ventures in the United
12                      States, primarily in California, and who
13                      worked on transferring wealth to the United
14                      States on behalf of, and in trust for
15                      Taib..."
16             Well, we just saw that Mr. Boyert said that there
17             was no money coming to the United States, so, Mr.
18             Straumann, I am putting to you that there is no
19             evidence in the record showing that Mr. Boyert
20             worked on transferring the wealth to the United
21             States.
22                      A.     Yes.  It should say...it should read
23             "worked on generating wealth in the United States".

---

Witness Discredited

​Lukas Straumann relies heavily on statements made by Boyert at the time of his dismissal in 1994, but fails to include in his affidavit the fact that upon termination, Boyert was sued for embezzlement and fraud.

13      217.             Q.      You said that the alleged fraudulent
14              behaviour of Mr. Boyert is relevant to the question
15              of his credibility. 
16                       A.      It could be relevant.
17      218.             Q.      And the fact that he may be a
18              disgruntled employee is relevant to the question of
19              his credibility.
20                       A.      It could be relevant.

---

No Evidence of Money Laundering

Straumann has repeatedly stated that Ross Boyert provided him with proof of money laundering.  In cross-examination, it became clear that there was no proof, only speculation.

20      306.             Q.      In paragraph 80 you state:
21                       "...In addition to confirming that Taib has
22                       been laundering corrupt money from Malaysia
23                       to his children, Boyert confirmed that it
24                       is well known..."
25              And then you continue talking about the names Sakto 
 
1              and Sakti.  But what I am interested in is the first
2              part of the paragraph. 
3                       So, you are saying in that paragraph that
4              Mr. Boyert confirmed to you that Taib had been
5              laundering corrupt money from Malaysia to his
6              children?
7                       A.      Yes. 
8      307.             Q.      But Mr. Boyert did not provide any
9              document or evidence supporting this?
10                       A.      No.  But that was what he was
11              convinced of.  I mean, that is what he said.

---

Key Witness Knew Nothing

Ross Boyert has been purported to be a key "whistleblower"  with proof of corruption.  When pressed, Straumann concedes that the only knowledge Boyert had was what he read in the newpapers.

22      394.             Q.      All right.  In paragraph (f), 19(f)
23              on page 22, the paragraph continues and you say
24              that:
25                       "...Boyert confirmed directly to me that
 
1                      Taib abused his position in government to
2                      obtain millions of dollars, and he has been
3                      laundering money through his family members
4                      and numerous companies, including Sakto and
5                      Sakti..."
6             And so I am suggesting to you, Mr. Straumann, that
7             it was impossible for Mr. Boyert to have any direct
8             knowledge about anything happening at the government
9             level in Malaysia.
10                      A.     Well, apart from reading newspapers
11             and...I think Boyert came...I mean, Boyert came to
12             the...that was the conclusion that Boyert had come
13             to after 12 years of service for this family.  And
 
24                      So, Boyert made his personal conclusion,
25             and...but we can't prove if this was a correct

1             conclusion, yes or no.  But that was his conclusion
2             as having worked for this company, and for this
3             family for 20 years.

---

Sting Video Rejected

Lukas Straumann has based many of his allegations about Malaysian corruption on a video made by Global Witness.  Straumann has repeatedly asserted that the video shows two relatives of the former Chief Minister arranging for a bribe to be paid to him through an offshore bank in exchange for the sale of a company owned by them.  In cross-examination, Straumann admits that there is no mention of Taib, no mention of a bribe and no mention of an offshore bank.  His allegations are completely unfounded – by his own admission.

22      454.             Q.      Okay, going back to your affidavit,
23              you say...another thing that you say that the Global
24              Witness video shows is...the second thing you
25              mention is:

1                       "...The requirement that a bribe be paid to
2                       Taib through an offshore Singapore bank in
3                       exchange for the sale of a company owned by
4                       Taib's cousin..."
5              Do you see that?
6                       A.      What section is that in?
7      455.             Q.      So, it is page 38.
8                       A.      Yes. 
9      456.             Q.      And the paragraph 56.  So, if you
10              start at the end of paragraph 56 it is the fifth
11              line.  "The requirement..."
12                       A.      Yes. 
13      457.             Q.      You see that?
14                       A.      I think there is...it should
15              read...I don't...I don't think that the video shows
16              that the bribe should be paid through the offshore
17              bank, but the requirement that the bribe be paid to
18              Taib in exchange for the sale of a company.  But I
19              think we should cut that through an offshore
20              Singapore bank.
21      458.             Q.      Okay, that is one correction.  And I
22              suggest to you also, Mr. Straumann, that there was
23              no suggestion that in the proposed transaction with
24              the cousins that there be a bribe paid.  And you can
25              look at the transcript if you want.

1                       A.      Yes.  I think that refers to a
2              different...there are two deals being described, and
3              the deals with the cousins, there is no mention that
4              a bribe is being paid in that respect.  Correct.

---

Kickback Scheme Rejected

​Lukas Straumann has built up his allegations of money laundering around a “kickback” scheme (also referred to as “bribes” and “extortion”) relating to brokerage fees paid to a company called Regent Star.   The allegation is that Onn, the brother of the former Chief Minister, required these kickbacks to be paid to Regent Star and that the money would be transferred to another of his companies called Richfold.  Under cross-examination, his case falls completely apart.  First, Onn is not involved in Regent Star, and in any event, there is no evidence Regent Star and Richfold had any dealings.

20     559.             Q.     Okay, so...I am all in favour of the
21             truth.  So, Onn Mahmud was a director and
22             shareholder of Richfold, just to clarify.
23                      A.     Correct. 
24     560.             Q.     Another Hong Kong company.
25                      A.     Correct. 
                                                 
1      561.             Q.      But he was not a director and
2              shareholder of Regent Star?
3                       A.      Correct. 
4      562.             Q.      And you have no evidence in this
5              record that Richfold and Regent Star did any
6              business together, or exchanged money?
7                       A.      No.

Next, the allegations of bribery, extortion and kickbacks are all based upon a decision of a Tokyo tax court, that Lukas Straumann says found the payments to be “illegitimate expenses” but in cross-examination he admits he has never seen that decision. Worse, when he admits that his knowledge of the decision was a Japan Times news article, which does not contain the words “illegitimate expense” but simply says they were “entertainment expenses.”

21      565.             Q.      And in paragraph 49 you talk about
22              the decision of the Tokyo Regional Taxation
23              Authority.
24                       A.      Correct. 
25      566.             Q.      And in the second sentence in that

1              paragraph you state:
2                       "...The Tokyo Regional Taxation Authority
3                       found that these payments were
4                       'illegitimate expenses', or kickbacks,
5                       rather than 'entertainment expenses', as
6                       they were so claimed by the shipping
7                       companies that were paid to the Taib family
8                       to facilitate tropical hardwood exports
9                       from Sarawak to Japan..."
10                       A.      Yes. 
11      567.             Q.      So, in that sentence you put the
12              words "illegitimate expenses" and "entertainment
13              expenses" in quotes, but I understand that you do
14              not have a copy of the decision of the Tokyo
15              Regional Taxation Authority.
16                       A.      Yes.  Actually, we had tried to
17              obtain a copy of the Regional Tax Authority's
18              decision, but according to Japanese privacy
19              legislation, it is not possible for third parties to
20              access those copies.
21      568.             Q.      So the quotation marks refer to
22              what?
23                       A.      Quotation marks refer to the Japan
24              Times report, and actually, in the tab 26 we have
25              the National Tax Tribunal decision, and the National

1             Tax Tribunal decision also refers to the original
2             decision, that the agency took the original action
3             decided, pages 779 to 784.  And I think...I found
4             this sentence a bit confusing here.  The Tokyo
5             Regional Tax...according to my understanding, the
6             Tokyo Regional Taxation Authority found that these
7             payments were entertainment expenses.  It is not
8             illegitimate expenses rather than entertainment
9             expenses.  I mean, these were...because the relevant
10             law here is article 61 of the Japanese Measures law.

The “kickback” scheme story continues to fall apart when Straumann admits that the entire basis for the allegation was a decision that he had never seen, but that he has known since 2008 that it had been overturned, with a finding that the entire brokerage arrangement was legitimate, and that services were provided under a brokerage contract.

10      579.             Q.      So, as you mentioned there was a
11              subsequent decision by the National Tax Tribunal
12              because the Tokyo Regional Taxation Authority's
13              decision was appealed?
14                       A.      Correct. 
15      580.             Q.      And the National Tax Tribunal
16              reversed the decision of the Tokyo Regional Taxation
17              Authority?
18                       A.      Correct.                                                   
16      597.             Q.     Okay.  And this article reports on
17              the decision of the National Tax Tribunal that we 
18              just looked at.
19                       A.      Yes. 
20      598.             Q.      And so did you see this article in
21              August, 2008, shortly after it was published?
22                       A.      Yes. 
23      599.             Q.      So you became aware of the National
24              Tax Tribunal decision at about that time, in August,
25              2008?

1                       A.      Yes. 
2      600.             Q.      And the penultimate paragraph in
3              this article summarizes the decision.  It states:
4                       "...On the 28th of last month, the National
5                       Tax Tribunal ruled to rescind the Tokyo
6                       Regional Taxation Bureau's revision
7                       disposition, stating that 'The brokerage
8                       fees were paid according to a contract, and
9                       cannot be deemed to be entertainment
10                       expenses.  Regent Star exists in actuality
11                       and provides legitimate brokerage
12                       services'..."
13                       A.      Yes. 
14      601.             Q.      And that is consistent with your
15              understanding of the decision?
16                       A.      Yes.  I mean, my understanding of
17              the decision is...I mean, we look at the facts.  We
18              look at the applicable law, and we look at the legal
19              consequence.  So, the facts are acknowledged.  So...
20      602.             Q.      Sorry, the facts are?
21                       A.      Acknowledged.

Finally, Straumann is forced to admit that despite his allegations of corruption, fraud, bribes, extortion and illegal kickbacks, there has never been such a finding.

19     633.             Q.     There is no finding in Japan as far
20             as you know, that the payments made by the Japanese
21             shipping companies are illegal.
22                      A.     There is no such finding, correct. 

All referenced quotations on this page are excerpts from the official court transcript.
View the full transcript here:

Read The Full Transcript