KUALA LUMPUR- Recent reports linking IJM Corporation Berhad chairman Tan Sri Krishnan Tan and long-time associate Seow Lun Hoo to offshore accounts have prompted increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies in Malaysia and abroad.
While neither IJM nor its senior executives have been formally accused of misconduct, financial documents and independent reporting suggest a network of cross-border transactions — totalling more than RM2.5 billion (£445 million) — may not have been fully disclosed under standard reporting requirements.
Regulatory Scrutiny and International Links
Investigative reports indicate that the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is examining fund flows linked to entities associated with Tan and Seow. The transfers reportedly involve layered movements through multiple foreign financial institutions — a pattern commonly assessed in potential money-laundering or illicit enrichment cases.
In Malaysia, sources indicate that the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and Bank Negara Malaysia have initiated preliminary reviews under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act (AMLA).
RM90 Million in Offshore Accounts Flagged
Compliance data suggests Tan Sri Krishnan may have access to offshore holdings worth approximately RM90 million, supported by multiple Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) and Cash Transaction Reports (CTRs) filed by Malaysian banks.
Analysts note that these reports do not inherently signify wrongdoing but serve as early flags for regulatory monitoring.
Corporate governance experts emphasise that transparency and timely reporting are imperative for listed companies with significant foreign exposure. With substantial investments abroad, particularly in the UK infrastructure and property sectors, IJM is expected to meet the highest disclosure standards.
Prolintas–IJM Deal Under Spotlight
The heightened attention comes as Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) moves to finalise the sale of Prolintas Holdings Sdn Bhd — operator of the SUKE and DASH expressways — to IJM.
While IJM has framed the acquisition as part of its long-term infrastructure expansion strategy, market observers say the timing — amid questions over governance — may prompt further scrutiny of valuation methods and due-diligence processes.
One investment analyst remarked that strategic acquisitions must be assessed through the lens of governance integrity. If offshore transactions remain under question, it becomes even more important for the board to demonstrate full oversight and compliance.
The Role of Seow Lun Hoo
Seow, a financial adviser through his group Newfields Advisory, has long been linked to IJM’s strategic moves, including the 2015 privatisation of IJM Land Berhad.
Public filings indicate Seow maintains several offshore accounts with combined balances exceeding RM2.5 billion, despite declaring less than RM600,000 in income to the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) over the same period.
Tax specialists note that this discrepancy could prompt investigation under the Income Tax Act 1967 if it reflects undeclared income or assets held via proxies.
Financial Integrity and Investor Confidence
The situation has reignited debate on whether Malaysia’s enforcement structure is equipped to manage complex cross-border financial arrangements.
Market observers say the episode highlights the need for:
- Stronger beneficial-ownership disclosure rules
- Tighter coordination between Bank Negara, LHDN, and the Securities Commission
- Greater transparency in offshore-linked corporate financing
“Corporate trust takes decades to build but can erode very quickly,” said one governance scholar. “Even the perception of opacity can affect investor confidence and market valuation.”
IJM’s Response
In a statement, IJM said all its transactions are conducted “in full compliance with applicable laws and accounting standards” and welcomed any review by relevant authorities.
Industry watchers note that IJM remains financially strong, with diversified interests in construction, property, and concessions. However, they warn that the group’s reputation — built over four decades — may depend on how transparently it addresses questions surrounding its leadership and offshore dealings.
