Construction and infrastructure group IJM Corp Bhd is facing renewed scrutiny after a whistleblower complaint resurfaced online, alleging opaque offshore structures, questionable shareholding arrangements and links to individuals purportedly involved in large unreported financial transfers and land-related misappropriation.

The letter — addressed to Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and copied to Malaysia’s Attorney General — raises a series of claims involving two individuals identified as Krishnan Tan and Seow Lun Hoo, as well as concerns over governance oversight at Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), a major shareholder of IJM.

Regulators under pressure as foreign agencies take notice

According to the complaint (page 1), the issues surrounding IJM and the alleged offenders were previously highlighted by whistleblower portals, but “nothing has triggered any investigation in Malaysia,” particularly among domestic banks.

The whistleblower asserts that:

• Chinese authorities have already taken cognisance of the alleged irregularities.
• Chinese state-owned enterprises and banks were reportedly instructed to refrain from engaging in business with IJM and the individuals named.
• The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had purportedly initiated inquiries, including sending officers to Malaysia to gather information.

These claims cannot be independently verified, but they amplify concerns that overseas regulators may be acting faster than Malaysian institutions.

£15.3 million (RM90 million) transferred abroad, minimal taxes paid

The central allegation concerns an unexplained overseas transfer of £15.3 million (RM90 million). The whistleblower questions how the transaction went unnoticed, why the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) failed to trigger scrutiny, and how such a substantial outflow escaped assessment by BNM and Malaysian banks.

Another individual — described as a “proxy” — allegedly owns £425 million (RM2.5 billion) in assets but reportedly paid only £102,000 (RM600,000) in taxes.
The complaint argues that such a vast disparity between wealth and tax paid should have prompted immediate action from the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN).

Land deal in Penang raises integrity concerns

A significant portion of the whistleblower’s letter (page 2) outlines a contentious land deal involving two individuals referred to as “Fraud 1” and “Fraud 2.”

Key allegations include:

• In 2024, a businessman-turned-philanthropist (“Fraud 1”) and a former executive councillor (“Fraud 2”) allegedly conspired to profit from a Tamil school development project.
• The Juru Tamil School Board of Governors was offered 12.456 acres of state land valued nominally at £1.84 million (RM10.85 million) at RM20 per sq ft, despite an estimated market value closer to RM120 per sq ft.
• The alleged scheme would allow the duo to build the school on just 3 acres, while exploiting the remaining 7.66 acres for mixed-use development with significantly higher commercial value.

The whistleblower claims the manoeuvre could generate £8.5 million (RM50 million) in personal profit for the individuals involved.

Supporting documents were said to have been furnished by an informant but were not included in the current letter.

Share-swap allegations and minority shareholder risks

The final page (page 3) outlines an alleged share-swap arrangement purportedly orchestrated by IJM shareholders identified as “KT & Seow” and an individual referred to as “TS Jeffrey.”

The complaint asserts that:

• The supposed deal was structured at the shareholder level, enabling IJM’s board to deny involvement.
• TS Jeffrey would allegedly pay a 40% premium to obtain shares held through proxies linked to the two men.
• Minority shareholders — including PNB — were described as the “losers” in the arrangement.

The letter further claims that a similar past transaction by PNB involving another large developer had resulted in significant advantage to a non-Malay corporate figure, raising concerns about PNB’s governance consistency.

The complaint also speculates that Sunway Group, mentioned indirectly, would “cull” IJM staff and management if a takeover were to materialise. No evidence supporting this claim was provided.

Call for regulatory intervention

The complainant urges BNM to:

• Verify the allegations with Malaysian and UK authorities
• Alert financial institutions and, if necessary, freeze or close accounts suspected of facilitating money laundering
• Prevent Malaysian regulators from being “dragged into the allegations” by inaction

The letter concludes with the statement: “Trust BNM will do the needful.”

IJM, PNB, and BNM silent so far

As of publication, IJM Corp, PNB, and Bank Negara Malaysia have not issued statements responding to the claims outlined in the complaint.

Given the gravity of the allegations — ranging from unreported overseas transfers to questionable land dealings and potential minority-shareholder disadvantage — industry analysts expect pressure to mount for greater clarity, particularly from institutional investors and governance advocates.

For now, the allegations remain unproven. But as foreign regulators are claimed to be circling, Malaysian authorities may find themselves compelled to act sooner rather than later.