Here is the rewritten article in Markdown format:
Embezzlement Examples Highlighted in Recent Maldivian Case
======================================================
The Maldivian government has been accused of embezzling millions of dollars from the state coffers through the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Company (MMPRC). The issue was first flagged in 2014 by Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim, who reported that a staggering USD 6 million had been embezzled. However, his report was ignored and he was summarily dismissed from his position.
A Whistleblower’s Dilemma
Fast forward to 2016 when Gasim Abdul Kareem, Manager at Bank of Maldives Nilandhoo Branch, was arrested for leaking detailed bank statements of private company SOF Pvt. Ltd. The documents revealed how SOF bank accounts were used to siphon off millions of dollars embezzled from MMPRC.
- Gasim’s actions have sparked debate on whether he is a whistleblower or criminal.
- According to Article 232(b) of the Penal Code, any good faith disclosure of private information for the purpose of exposing a wrongdoing is not an offence.
Prosecution and Backlash
The state has decided to prosecute Gasim as a criminal, under Article 232 (Unlawful Acquisition of Information) and Section 233 (Unlawful Disclosure of Information) of the Penal Code. However, experts argue that this is an attempt to silence Gasim and protect those involved in the embezzlement.
Latest Audit Report
The latest audit report states that a total of USD 79.37 million was embezzled through MMPRC, with USD 70.17 million deposited into SOF Pvt. Ltd.’s bank account. Mohamed Allam Latheef ‘Moho’, owner of SOF Pvt. Ltd., later revealed that the money was distributed to the first couple, the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives, and other senior politicians.
The Whistleblower’s Intentions
Gasim’s disclosures have filled in essential gaps on where embezzled money was routed to through these accounts. The state has been eager to emphasize that Gasim did not share the information with competent authorities, but experts argue that he had little faith in law enforcement agencies and chose to bypass them due to their compromised nature.
Calls for Protection
The case has sparked calls for Gasim’s protection and praise for taking action against corruption. To prosecute Gasim sends a message that protecting the privacy of individuals who engage in corruption on a grand scale is more important than protecting whistleblowers who expose their corruption.