THAT celebrity fashion designer Datuk Jovian Mandagie was yesterday (July 3) declared a bankrupt by the Kuala Lumpur High Court over failure to settle a RM5.28 mil “friendly loan” from an engineering and construction outfit has sparked excitement among Malaysians.
In short, 1,001 questions – some insightful while others hilarious – filled cyberspace on the misadventure of the Indonesian who was the former son-in-law of ninth premier Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob.
For starters, one commenter to a news post on the Malaysiakini Facebook page wondered how a bankrupt can still “wear coat/suit and tie” to which this elicited cheeky feedback that “the biggest convicted kleptocrat is also wearing suits to court” and that the person is only “a bankrupt in name only”.
This is considering that bankrupts can still own properties and notable assets like cars or even travel overseas subject to the consent of the Director-General of Insolvency (DGI) (note that the Bankruptcy Act 1966 stipulates that a bankrupt is barred from travelling abroad).
Jovian, 39, had married Ismail Sabri’s daughter, Nina Sabrina, on Dec 11, 2013 but the (then) oft-dubbed “power couple” divorced in August 2023. Meanwhile, Ismail Sabri who is Malaysia’s PM with the shortest stint helmed the country for eight months from Aug 21, 2021 to Nov 24, 2022.
For the uninitiated, Jovian was found by senior assistant registrar Faisal Zulkifli to have committed an act of bankruptcy after allowing a petition filed by creditor Cekap Air Sdn Bhd on Nov 20 last year.
In its statement of claim, the company claimed that it had given out the loan which was meant to be repaid within 12 month “verbally and casually” to Jovian on Feb 25, 2022 on ground that its executive director Max Yong Zhen Wei and Jovian were acquaintances.
“Furthermore, there was no reason for the plaintiff (Cekap Air) to doubt the defendant (Jovian) as the latter had several other businesses and was the (then) son-in-law of former prime minister DS Ismail Sabri,” the statement pointed out.
However, the plaintiff claimed that Jovian failed, refused or neglected to make re-payments or had even unjustly enriched when he received the loan without making repayments while causing terrible losses to the defendant.
This ‘irresponsible’ attitude has sparked one interesting observation with one commenter having alluded to the consequences of ‘fatal connection’ after questioning why “a Type C building contractor would give out a RM5.28 mil loan to the son-in-law of the PM”. – July 4, 2025
Main image credit: Tatler
