SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Let me make it less rambling. I don't think it was that intemperate, tbh - I'd prefer waspish!
(It may be just as daft....)
There was never sufficient evidence to justify an investigation by the SFO.
The investigation was launched largely at the behest of malcontent lefties who have an axe to grind.
The investigation was looking into ancient history, but had the potential to do us damage today.
BAE played the game more cleanly than other aerospace companies in the same market.
It amazes me that someone like you (intelligent, normally well-informed, distinguished ex-RAF officer - NB no smileys, no sarcasm implied) should ally himself with the Guardian's CAAT-backed campaign.
(It may be just as daft....)
There was never sufficient evidence to justify an investigation by the SFO.
The investigation was launched largely at the behest of malcontent lefties who have an axe to grind.
The investigation was looking into ancient history, but had the potential to do us damage today.
BAE played the game more cleanly than other aerospace companies in the same market.
It amazes me that someone like you (intelligent, normally well-informed, distinguished ex-RAF officer - NB no smileys, no sarcasm implied) should ally himself with the Guardian's CAAT-backed campaign.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think we would all agree with your last post re wanting to know the truth BEagle but can't you accept that if, after five years, the SFO has still not been able to find enough evidence to support a prosecution, the truth may be that nothing illegal happened?
Or is the truth that CAAT and two journos from The Guardian are far better investigators than the UK's Serious Fraud Office?
Or is the truth that CAAT and two journos from The Guardian are far better investigators than the UK's Serious Fraud Office?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line, Beagle, is innocent unless proved guilty. You seem to want to see proof of innocence.
The fact that some of the Saudi money was channeled to their own royalty is not a matter for our country to deal with in any case and the SFO investigation was going nowhere anyway. In most jurisdictions this would never have got started and it was quite right that it ended.
The fact that some of the Saudi money was channeled to their own royalty is not a matter for our country to deal with in any case and the SFO investigation was going nowhere anyway. In most jurisdictions this would never have got started and it was quite right that it ended.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corruption in SA. BAe had a few fingers in the SA arms deal as well. This is the tip of the iceberg and the rot goes all the way to the top.
news24.com
Govt 'blocks arms deal queries'
24/08/2008 12:56 - (SA)
Johannesburg - Attempts by the government to obstruct the Democratic Alliance's enquiries into South Africa's multi-billion rand arms deal have continued, the party's arms deal spokesperson Eddie Trent said on Sunday.
Trent said the DA had received a response from Justice Director-General Menzi Simelane stating that the department would not give the DA access to the German and British Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreements with South Africa.
The MLAs set out the details of South Africa's co-operation with Britain and Germany in respect of their investigations into allegations of corruption connected with the arms deal.
"We believe that the German investigation ceased because of a lack of co-operation from South Africa, and we suspect that the British investigation may likewise also be ended due to a singular lack of assistance from the government," Trent said.
Releasing info
"If this is untrue, we challenge the Minister of Justice to refute this allegation by providing the public with substantive evidence that South Africa is co-operating fully with the British authorities.
"By accessing the MLAs, we would be able to hold government to account in terms of whether it assisted the German and British investigations.
"It is essential that our government co-operates fully with the investigations and ensures that any South Africans who benefited unlawfully from the billions of rands spent on the arms deal are publicly held to account."
The reason for the refusal that Simelane gave was as follows: "Disclosure of the copy of the request as well as other documents which accompanied the said request will in my view, prejudice the good international relationship that the Republic of South Africa has with the United Kingdom...
"I therefore refuse you access to the requested records... "
Said Trent: "Government has repeatedly stated that there were no irregularities in respect of the arms deal - yet they continue to obstruct and prevent access to relevant documents.
"If there are no irregularities, then government should have no reason to prevent those documents from being scrutinised and no reason to believe that the disclosure of any information in these documents would prejudice its reputation.
"We challenge government either to release the documents that they have refused access to, or to admit that they are concealing information."
Govt 'blocks arms deal queries'
24/08/2008 12:56 - (SA)
Johannesburg - Attempts by the government to obstruct the Democratic Alliance's enquiries into South Africa's multi-billion rand arms deal have continued, the party's arms deal spokesperson Eddie Trent said on Sunday.
Trent said the DA had received a response from Justice Director-General Menzi Simelane stating that the department would not give the DA access to the German and British Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreements with South Africa.
The MLAs set out the details of South Africa's co-operation with Britain and Germany in respect of their investigations into allegations of corruption connected with the arms deal.
"We believe that the German investigation ceased because of a lack of co-operation from South Africa, and we suspect that the British investigation may likewise also be ended due to a singular lack of assistance from the government," Trent said.
Releasing info
"If this is untrue, we challenge the Minister of Justice to refute this allegation by providing the public with substantive evidence that South Africa is co-operating fully with the British authorities.
"By accessing the MLAs, we would be able to hold government to account in terms of whether it assisted the German and British investigations.
"It is essential that our government co-operates fully with the investigations and ensures that any South Africans who benefited unlawfully from the billions of rands spent on the arms deal are publicly held to account."
The reason for the refusal that Simelane gave was as follows: "Disclosure of the copy of the request as well as other documents which accompanied the said request will in my view, prejudice the good international relationship that the Republic of South Africa has with the United Kingdom...
"I therefore refuse you access to the requested records... "
Said Trent: "Government has repeatedly stated that there were no irregularities in respect of the arms deal - yet they continue to obstruct and prevent access to relevant documents.
"If there are no irregularities, then government should have no reason to prevent those documents from being scrutinised and no reason to believe that the disclosure of any information in these documents would prejudice its reputation.
"We challenge government either to release the documents that they have refused access to, or to admit that they are concealing information."
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRT - the corruption case in South Africa involves a certain French defence Company and not BAE. There was a separate case there too involving a Franco-German defence Company and Mercedes cars.
You are right in one respect. BAE (and SAAB) was involved in the South African defence modernisation programme (Hawk and Gripen) as was Augusta Westland (Lynx) and others.
BSJ
You are right in one respect. BAE (and SAAB) was involved in the South African defence modernisation programme (Hawk and Gripen) as was Augusta Westland (Lynx) and others.
BSJ
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico,
I'm with you on this one.
I worked very happily with BAe for quite a while, then chucked it in when highly experienced colleaugues were thrown out & accountants who did not know nose from tail were shipped in .
This included fatal accidents which BAe tried to wash their hands of, to their discredit and ultimate loss.
There is the overall point, however that BAe were 'less corrupt' than our competitors, especially our overseas ( long or short range ) competitors...I was moaned at one day by one our -BAe- salesmen that while ' the others' turned up with champagne, caviar and mega-bucks, he was lucky if he got a crate of brown ale to seduce customers with !
This may have changed in the mid-late 1980's...
I in my job as hanging cine-pods for weapon trials had got to know the Matra team quite well; when they turned up looking more sunburned than usual, I asked ' where have you been then, Yves ?'
" Oh, yesterday in Libya " - this was a day or two after Reagan sent in the F-111's !
I heard a little speech from a BAe ' manager' ( in broken English ) along the lines of " if we can make more money making washing machines, that's what we'll do !"
Which explains a lot...
I'm with you on this one.
I worked very happily with BAe for quite a while, then chucked it in when highly experienced colleaugues were thrown out & accountants who did not know nose from tail were shipped in .
This included fatal accidents which BAe tried to wash their hands of, to their discredit and ultimate loss.
There is the overall point, however that BAe were 'less corrupt' than our competitors, especially our overseas ( long or short range ) competitors...I was moaned at one day by one our -BAe- salesmen that while ' the others' turned up with champagne, caviar and mega-bucks, he was lucky if he got a crate of brown ale to seduce customers with !
This may have changed in the mid-late 1980's...
I in my job as hanging cine-pods for weapon trials had got to know the Matra team quite well; when they turned up looking more sunburned than usual, I asked ' where have you been then, Yves ?'
" Oh, yesterday in Libya " - this was a day or two after Reagan sent in the F-111's !
I heard a little speech from a BAe ' manager' ( in broken English ) along the lines of " if we can make more money making washing machines, that's what we'll do !"
Which explains a lot...
Last edited by Double Zero; 26th Aug 2008 at 02:58.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: berlin
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Won’t somebody please think of the children!
BSJ are you sure?
I thought BAE was the only corrupt / fraudulent defence company in the world.
I'm stunned that the French would do such a thing, there must be some mistake.
This has got northern monkeys selling substandard equipment to kill African orphans written all over it. You ask BEagle... he knows the score.
It sounds like SRT knows what he’s talking about too. I agree with him, it’s the tip of the iceberg; them northern monkeys are corrupt to the core. I heard they sell cigarettes to 10 year old kids too.
p.s. If anyone from BAE wants to bribe me to keep quiet, I 'm open to offers.
I thought BAE was the only corrupt / fraudulent defence company in the world.
I'm stunned that the French would do such a thing, there must be some mistake.
This has got northern monkeys selling substandard equipment to kill African orphans written all over it. You ask BEagle... he knows the score.
It sounds like SRT knows what he’s talking about too. I agree with him, it’s the tip of the iceberg; them northern monkeys are corrupt to the core. I heard they sell cigarettes to 10 year old kids too.
p.s. If anyone from BAE wants to bribe me to keep quiet, I 'm open to offers.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so. However, the Hawk was not the aircraft required or recommended by the Air Force folks who were to use it, yet it still won the tender so who knows? Just one of many in the whole SA arms deal mess.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only Armscor can explain why the Hawk/Gripen package was chosen over and above other alternatives, but much has been speculated.
For what it's worth, I doubt the 346 could have been delivered in time to meet the SAAF requirement and the 2nd hand 339s that were being suggested were never going to be a serious option, any more so than the
T50.
On that basis, not sure what choice SA had, other than to keep the Impalas flying for a few years more, which I understand was not a realistic option.
BSJ
For what it's worth, I doubt the 346 could have been delivered in time to meet the SAAF requirement and the 2nd hand 339s that were being suggested were never going to be a serious option, any more so than the
T50.
On that basis, not sure what choice SA had, other than to keep the Impalas flying for a few years more, which I understand was not a realistic option.
BSJ
....Hawk was not the aircraft required or recommended by the Air Force folks who were to use it, yet it still won the tender....
I doubt the 346 could have been delivered in time
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the Americans have subpoenaed BAe execs just proves they are short of cash and a nice wad (in our parlance, a "fine") should see the resumption of the status quo ? 
Anyway, without restating the obvious, isn't the the redistribution of wealth an exemplary pursuit in the eyes of the Guardian readership ?
An afternoon spent with a clutch of Guardianistas and CAAT "eccentrics" (as I did on one famour occasion) would certainly educate interested observers. God preserve us from the loony left, as evidenced by their current, chronic mishandling of everything in the domain of town halls to Parliament and their clear inability to think rationally in the real world.
Anyway, without restating the obvious, isn't the the redistribution of wealth an exemplary pursuit in the eyes of the Guardian readership ?
An afternoon spent with a clutch of Guardianistas and CAAT "eccentrics" (as I did on one famour occasion) would certainly educate interested observers. God preserve us from the loony left, as evidenced by their current, chronic mishandling of everything in the domain of town halls to Parliament and their clear inability to think rationally in the real world.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I just wish to know the truth."
Has anyone spotted the gem on page 10 of the Woolf report quoting part of the law lords findings?
“46. ....... The essence of any bribery offence in relation to payments to an agent is the absence of approval by the employer or principal. The need to rebut the defence of consent is a particular difficulty in relation to offences overseas, as the Attorney General pointed out in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee (Q335, 27 June 2007) and as is noted at paragraph 4.93 in the Law Commission Consultation Paper (No. 185) “Reforming Bribery”.
47. According to the Attorney General’s evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (§ 34) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney’s reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence.”
The SFO took 5 years and couldn't work this out? Or were they just fishing...
eap
Has anyone spotted the gem on page 10 of the Woolf report quoting part of the law lords findings?
“46. ....... The essence of any bribery offence in relation to payments to an agent is the absence of approval by the employer or principal. The need to rebut the defence of consent is a particular difficulty in relation to offences overseas, as the Attorney General pointed out in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee (Q335, 27 June 2007) and as is noted at paragraph 4.93 in the Law Commission Consultation Paper (No. 185) “Reforming Bribery”.
47. According to the Attorney General’s evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (§ 34) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney’s reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence.”
The SFO took 5 years and couldn't work this out? Or were they just fishing...
eap
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
Full article: BAE paid £100m to secure South African arms deal, police files allege | World news | guardian.co.uk
More than £100m was secretly paid by the arms company BAE to sell warplanes to South Africa, according to allegations in a detailed police
dossier seen by the Guardian.
The leaked evidence from South African police and the British Serious Fraud Office quotes a BAE agent recommending "financially incentivising" politicians.
dossier seen by the Guardian.
The leaked evidence from South African police and the British Serious Fraud Office quotes a BAE agent recommending "financially incentivising" politicians.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The film script from "The Last Boy Scout", I believe, made play on the fact that in the "real" world there were few "black and white" situations in business and government, but there were limitless shades of grey. Many of you commenting on this issue appear to be boy scouts and cannot or do not want to accept that business and government "succeeds" by being better, quicker, ****ier, noisier, and sometimes more efficient and acceptable than the opposition or alternatives. Like it or not, that's (capitalist) life and that's what keeps you employed.
Happy Christmas (or similar)
Happy Christmas (or similar)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RomeoOscarGolf
The film script from "The Last Boy Scout..Like it or not, that's (capitalist) life and that's what keeps you employed.
BAE Systems has 4 weeks to plead guilty
From today's Sunday Times:
BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’
Iain Dey
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has set BAE Systems a four-week deadline to plead guilty to allegations of bribery linked to lucrative equipment contracts, according to industry sources.
The defence giant has been warned that it could face a criminal trial over the claims if it fails to reach an agreement with investigators.
BAE would be expected to pay fines running to tens of millions of pounds alongside any guilty plea.
The investigation relates to contracts struck by the company in South Africa, Tanzania and the Czech Republic. It is understood that the total value of the deals in question exceeds £2.5 billion.
BAE said it was “allowing the investigations to run their course” and that it is “providing access to people, information and premises whenever requested”. The SFO could not be reached for comment.
The probe was launched alongside a high-profile investigation into allegations that BAE bribed Saudi Arabian officials to secure deals. That investigation was dropped.
Full article at BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’ - Times Online
BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’
Iain Dey
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has set BAE Systems a four-week deadline to plead guilty to allegations of bribery linked to lucrative equipment contracts, according to industry sources.
The defence giant has been warned that it could face a criminal trial over the claims if it fails to reach an agreement with investigators.
BAE would be expected to pay fines running to tens of millions of pounds alongside any guilty plea.
The investigation relates to contracts struck by the company in South Africa, Tanzania and the Czech Republic. It is understood that the total value of the deals in question exceeds £2.5 billion.
BAE said it was “allowing the investigations to run their course” and that it is “providing access to people, information and premises whenever requested”. The SFO could not be reached for comment.
The probe was launched alongside a high-profile investigation into allegations that BAE bribed Saudi Arabian officials to secure deals. That investigation was dropped.
Full article at BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’ - Times Online