PUTRAJAYA— The legal saga of former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak reached a dramatic new peak this Friday, December 26, 2025.
The verdict follows an exhaustive trial involving 25 charges: four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering.
A Record-Breaking Financial Penalty
In addition to the prison term, the court imposed a staggering fine of 11.4 billion ringgit (approximately $2.8 billion), representing five times the value of the illegal gratifications.
The court definitively rejected Najib's defense that the funds were a "political donation" from the Saudi royal family, with Judge Sequerah famously dismissing the claim as a tale that "surpassed even those from the Arabian Nights."
Accumulated Sentences and Political Fallout
Najib, who has been incarcerated since August 2022, is already serving a sentence for a separate conviction related to SRC International (a former 1MDB unit).
The conviction serves as a pivotal moment for the government of Anwar Ibrahim, testing the stability of his governing alliance, which includes the UMNO party formerly led by Najib.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the 1MDB scandal?
The 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Berhad) scandal is one of the world's largest financial frauds, involving the theft of at least $4.5 billion from a Malaysian state fund.
Will Najib Razak serve 15 years on top of his current sentence? Yes. Although the judge ordered the sentences for the 25 individual counts in this trial to run concurrently (resulting in 15 years), he specified that this new term will only begin after Najib finishes his current six-year sentence for the SRC International case in August 2028.
What happens if Najib cannot pay the $2.8 billion fine? If the former Prime Minister is unable to pay the record-breaking fine of 11.4 billion ringgit, the law stipulates an "in default" penalty, which in this case adds an additional 10 years to his prison duration.
Can Najib Razak still appeal this decision?
Yes. Najib’s lead defense counsel, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, has already indicated that they intend to appeal the verdict, citing what they describe as "legal blunders" by the High Court.

Post a Comment