SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
From the BBC:-
Legal move over halted BAE probe
Campaigners are threatening legal action against the UK government after investigators dropped a probe into a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
The Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House labelled BAE Systems, the firm accused of corruption, as bullies. BAE strongly denies wrongdoing.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said he felt the Serious Fraud Office inquiry would not have led to a prosecution.
SFO head Robert Wardle said he had "a different view" to Lord Goldsmith.
Mr Wardle told the Financial Times newspaper: "There is no guarantee that charges will be brought until you've completed an investigation."
'Powerful body'
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester said Britain had to move quickly to change the law to stop political interference in corruption investigations.
"British Aerospace are an enormously powerful body, more powerful than many governments," he told the BBC.
"What is so serious here is that the rule of law is threatened and the reputation of the office of attorney general when there is outside political interference of this kind."
Explaining why his group was taking legal action, Nicholas Gilby from Campaign Against the Arms Trade said the SFO should have been allowed to complete its inquiries.
"The government's commitment to fighting fraud means nothing if BAE Systems is placed above the law," he said.
"Democracy must not give way to bullying by arms companies."
The Attorney General's Office said it was unable to comment on "hypothetical" legal situations such as the possibility of action by campaigners.
The SFO had been studying the al-Yamamah arms deal, thought to have earned BAE more than £40bn over the past 20 years.
BAE has supplied fighter jets, missiles and helped to construct an airbase for the Saudis.
The company was accused of setting up a slush fund to sweeten the deal - something they have strongly denied.
The end of the inquiry came amid repeated suggestions that the Saudis were angered by the probe and were threatening to pull out of current plans to buy 72 Eurofighter planes from BAE for £6bn.
On Thursday Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced the SFO was dropping the probe, and said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
He added that the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
Lord Goldsmith insisted that no weight has been given to commercial interests or to the UK's national economic interest.
'Sorry episode'
And Prime Minister Tony Blair also said national security had dictated the SFO's decision.
Although current Conservative MPs labelled it a "sorry episode", former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken disagreed.
Mr Aitken had responsibility for overseas defence sales during the late 1980s.
He said even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.
Shares in BAE Systems were up almost 7% at the close of trading on Friday.
Legal move over halted BAE probe
Campaigners are threatening legal action against the UK government after investigators dropped a probe into a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
The Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House labelled BAE Systems, the firm accused of corruption, as bullies. BAE strongly denies wrongdoing.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said he felt the Serious Fraud Office inquiry would not have led to a prosecution.
SFO head Robert Wardle said he had "a different view" to Lord Goldsmith.
Mr Wardle told the Financial Times newspaper: "There is no guarantee that charges will be brought until you've completed an investigation."
'Powerful body'
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester said Britain had to move quickly to change the law to stop political interference in corruption investigations.
"British Aerospace are an enormously powerful body, more powerful than many governments," he told the BBC.
"What is so serious here is that the rule of law is threatened and the reputation of the office of attorney general when there is outside political interference of this kind."
Explaining why his group was taking legal action, Nicholas Gilby from Campaign Against the Arms Trade said the SFO should have been allowed to complete its inquiries.
"The government's commitment to fighting fraud means nothing if BAE Systems is placed above the law," he said.
"Democracy must not give way to bullying by arms companies."
The Attorney General's Office said it was unable to comment on "hypothetical" legal situations such as the possibility of action by campaigners.
The SFO had been studying the al-Yamamah arms deal, thought to have earned BAE more than £40bn over the past 20 years.
BAE has supplied fighter jets, missiles and helped to construct an airbase for the Saudis.
The company was accused of setting up a slush fund to sweeten the deal - something they have strongly denied.
The end of the inquiry came amid repeated suggestions that the Saudis were angered by the probe and were threatening to pull out of current plans to buy 72 Eurofighter planes from BAE for £6bn.
On Thursday Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced the SFO was dropping the probe, and said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
He added that the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
Lord Goldsmith insisted that no weight has been given to commercial interests or to the UK's national economic interest.
'Sorry episode'
And Prime Minister Tony Blair also said national security had dictated the SFO's decision.
Although current Conservative MPs labelled it a "sorry episode", former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken disagreed.
Mr Aitken had responsibility for overseas defence sales during the late 1980s.
He said even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.
Shares in BAE Systems were up almost 7% at the close of trading on Friday.
More in today's Sunday Times:
Leant on and lumbered — how Goldsmith ‘put the state before the law’
Lobbying by ministers and spy chiefs doomed the ‘slush fund’ probe, write Isabel Oakeshott and David Leppard
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...8436_1,00.html
And here:
Fraud chief: this is Saudi blackmail
David Leppard and David Cracknell
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...508464,00.html
And again here:
Cloak, dagger, bluff, blackmail, and Tony's nervous protector
by Simon Jenkins
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...508314,00.html
Leant on and lumbered — how Goldsmith ‘put the state before the law’
Lobbying by ministers and spy chiefs doomed the ‘slush fund’ probe, write Isabel Oakeshott and David Leppard
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...8436_1,00.html
And here:
Fraud chief: this is Saudi blackmail
David Leppard and David Cracknell
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...508464,00.html
And again here:
Cloak, dagger, bluff, blackmail, and Tony's nervous protector
by Simon Jenkins
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...508314,00.html
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Dec 2006 at 06:22.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredible Bliar
Yet again, he manages to get away with it using the same old tactics... Used by others before him by the way...
- War in Irak : Part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Stopping the SFO inquiry: Part of the (sorry...) VITAL part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Probably the "cash for honours" is another secret trick to win the war on terror, but we don't know yet..
Yes, everybody else (US, France, etc...) does bribery to sell arms around the world. However they are much better skilled at it than the Brits: When there is some noise about it, they just shut up, let the storm fade away and by the time the inquiry is complete, the deal is done and the dealers are long gone enjoying their bribes in some Caribbean islands...
Amateurs come up with excuses like:
- "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
- "It was claimed scrapping the contract for 72 Typhoon fighters would threaten 50,000 jobs" 50,000???? c'mooon...
- or the already mentioned "global war"...
At least now, the British government will have to drop its patronising "we-are-the-only-law-abiders-in-this-world-of-crooks" stance...They've become like the rest...
- War in Irak : Part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Stopping the SFO inquiry: Part of the (sorry...) VITAL part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Probably the "cash for honours" is another secret trick to win the war on terror, but we don't know yet..
Yes, everybody else (US, France, etc...) does bribery to sell arms around the world. However they are much better skilled at it than the Brits: When there is some noise about it, they just shut up, let the storm fade away and by the time the inquiry is complete, the deal is done and the dealers are long gone enjoying their bribes in some Caribbean islands...
Amateurs come up with excuses like:
- "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
- "It was claimed scrapping the contract for 72 Typhoon fighters would threaten 50,000 jobs" 50,000???? c'mooon...
- or the already mentioned "global war"...
At least now, the British government will have to drop its patronising "we-are-the-only-law-abiders-in-this-world-of-crooks" stance...They've become like the rest...
However they are much better skilled at it than the Brits: When there is some noise about it, they just shut up, let the storm fade away and by the time the inquiry is complete, the deal is done and the dealers are long gone enjoying their bribes in some Caribbean islands...
:
:
LCF
I agreed with much of your post apart from this bit. The Yanks (Boeing, actually) have recently been caught paying-off important people, and the French (Dassault) were also recently caught stuffing cash into the pocket of a South Korean Air Force Colonel. You guys aren't as good at your illegal practises as you might like to think.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when those US government officials and companies were caught, officials (and company senior officers) lost their jobs (and some went to prison), and companies had to pay fines in the hundreds of millions of dollars and lost contracts (Boeing was banned from bidding on space-related contracts for over a year, during which time several large contracts were awarded to competitors for one example, the cancellation of the KC-767 lease deal and putting the KC-135 replacement project open to Airbus to bid in on for another).
That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?
That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Course Lockheed would never have done anything like that would they?
BTW, who made the Dutch Starfighters?
BTW, who made the Dutch Starfighters?
A scan of my posts in this thread would have told you that I don't agree with what our government has decided to do regarding this affair, so next time keep your knickers on, mate.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigation stopped in the interests of "National Security"
Requests for the present findings to be published - "Not in the public interest"
I thought National Security was in the Public Interest - am I missing something here?
Requests for the present findings to be published - "Not in the public interest"
I thought National Security was in the Public Interest - am I missing something here?
"That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?"
Superficially, perhaps.
The difference is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING BY BAE in this case, and that our most senior law officers judged that there were no charges to answer, and that there was no chance of a prosecution.
The other difference is that in Al Y BAE were operating as scrupulously as they could, trying to keep on the right side of the barely perceptible line between gifts/commissions and bribes in a culture in which the giving of gifts is seen as being entirely proper and honourable - and were not engaging in outright corruption on a domestic US programme (KC-767) nor in offering bribes to influence officials in European NATO countries, where gifts are not seen in the same light at all.
Superficially, perhaps.
The difference is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING BY BAE in this case, and that our most senior law officers judged that there were no charges to answer, and that there was no chance of a prosecution.
The other difference is that in Al Y BAE were operating as scrupulously as they could, trying to keep on the right side of the barely perceptible line between gifts/commissions and bribes in a culture in which the giving of gifts is seen as being entirely proper and honourable - and were not engaging in outright corruption on a domestic US programme (KC-767) nor in offering bribes to influence officials in European NATO countries, where gifts are not seen in the same light at all.
As someone here has already pointed out, you can't state that there was 'no chance of prosecution'. Why? Because the investigation a) was not concluded, and b) because you have absolutely no idea what the SFO had, or had not, found up until the point they were ordered to cease investigating (and nor do I).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And since the investigation will never be completed...
Ewan, I was not responding to just your post, but to several "every one else is doing it, why can't we" and ""the US is just as bad... OK, much worse" posts.
To the others
Yes, there have been a number of such dealings in the past, which were not dealt with then... to the dishonor of both those who participated and those who looked the other way.
That does NOT mean that "since they got away with it we should too"... nor does it mean that "since the law was ignored then, we should ignore it now"!
Nothing will ever change unless we decide to change it, too many of the posters here appear to have taken the position of "why bother trying to change anything, let it all go on as before".
If that attitude had been held by our fore-fathers, slavery would still be the norm throughout the world, Nobles would still rule by "Divine right" (and be able to kill any commoner they wished without penalty), medicine, etc. would still be "try this root extract, it will cure your son's demonic possession" and "sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes", and the rich could pay their way out of any legal situation!
Ewan, I was not responding to just your post, but to several "every one else is doing it, why can't we" and ""the US is just as bad... OK, much worse" posts.
To the others
Yes, there have been a number of such dealings in the past, which were not dealt with then... to the dishonor of both those who participated and those who looked the other way.
That does NOT mean that "since they got away with it we should too"... nor does it mean that "since the law was ignored then, we should ignore it now"!
Nothing will ever change unless we decide to change it, too many of the posters here appear to have taken the position of "why bother trying to change anything, let it all go on as before".
If that attitude had been held by our fore-fathers, slavery would still be the norm throughout the world, Nobles would still rule by "Divine right" (and be able to kill any commoner they wished without penalty), medicine, etc. would still be "try this root extract, it will cure your son's demonic possession" and "sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes", and the rich could pay their way out of any legal situation!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised by the slightly pompous attitude of some of the posters. It is a little arrogant to suggest that just because there was an investigation BAE must be guilty of something.
I am not a fan of BAE, particularly as I am itimately involved with dealing with their middle and senior management in my current role. They are not team players by any stretch. It appears to have escaped their attention that we are at war and are just using the current conflicts to rip us off for as much as they can get.
That said, when it comes to multi-billion pound trade deals with nations that are important to us economically and strategically I think we have to maintain a healthy dose of pragmatism. Those of you baying for BAE blood would presumably be happy if they went to the dogs or lost a contract of this nature because that is what they deserve.
Presumably you would be happy to hand out the P45's to those who would lose their jobs as a result of a failure in realpolitik between the UK and KSA so that you could feel smug on top of your moral pile. Admittedly the number of 50,000 jobs bandied about is ridiculous but there are significant UK jobs, in the thousands, riding on this.
Anybody who believes that slightly dubious marketing and PR practices that may happen when dealing with nations outside our comfortable western clique have obviously never tried to win a contract in a former soviet republic or any number of other countries that we could all name.
We cannot be so arrogant as to judge everyone by our own blue sky standards - different cultures do things differently. 'When in Rome' (or Riyadh etc). Perhaps those of you out there with the correct moral compass that I am clearly lacking would prefer that we boycotted completely any nation without our rigorous adherence to democracy (the West Lothian question, NHS postcode lottery, legal subservience to unelected EU commissions etc etc are not really a shining beacon are they) - it is all relative.
To clarify, I don't like BAE but I support their workers and the strength that they do give to British industry and technology.
I think the current government is the most morally bankrupt, undemocratic and corrupt government in living memory.
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.
I am not a fan of BAE, particularly as I am itimately involved with dealing with their middle and senior management in my current role. They are not team players by any stretch. It appears to have escaped their attention that we are at war and are just using the current conflicts to rip us off for as much as they can get.
That said, when it comes to multi-billion pound trade deals with nations that are important to us economically and strategically I think we have to maintain a healthy dose of pragmatism. Those of you baying for BAE blood would presumably be happy if they went to the dogs or lost a contract of this nature because that is what they deserve.
Presumably you would be happy to hand out the P45's to those who would lose their jobs as a result of a failure in realpolitik between the UK and KSA so that you could feel smug on top of your moral pile. Admittedly the number of 50,000 jobs bandied about is ridiculous but there are significant UK jobs, in the thousands, riding on this.
Anybody who believes that slightly dubious marketing and PR practices that may happen when dealing with nations outside our comfortable western clique have obviously never tried to win a contract in a former soviet republic or any number of other countries that we could all name.
We cannot be so arrogant as to judge everyone by our own blue sky standards - different cultures do things differently. 'When in Rome' (or Riyadh etc). Perhaps those of you out there with the correct moral compass that I am clearly lacking would prefer that we boycotted completely any nation without our rigorous adherence to democracy (the West Lothian question, NHS postcode lottery, legal subservience to unelected EU commissions etc etc are not really a shining beacon are they) - it is all relative.
To clarify, I don't like BAE but I support their workers and the strength that they do give to British industry and technology.
I think the current government is the most morally bankrupt, undemocratic and corrupt government in living memory.
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.
I am surprised by the slightly pompous attitude of some of the posters. It is a little arrogant to suggest that just because there was an investigation BAE must be guilty of something. <snip>
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.
I am certainly pragmatic - the very fact that we have to sell arms to Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, despite our pretend stance on the importance of human rights, requires a degree of pragmatism if you don’t want to be utterly exasperated with this country’s duplicity - but I also think that when we're being watched by every pair of eyes to see whether we practise what we preach, we should take it on the chin and then move on.
Moreover, I don't like the idea that we have given a country that threatened to stop sharing information on Al Quaeda with us if we carried on investigating what it wants. How many countries would the US allow to get away with that? None – they’d have added them to the axis of evil list and told them they were screwed. We give-in, and do a good job of looking like the poodle that so many portray us as sniffing around dog $hit looking for whatever morsel of food we can get.
I actually share your sentiments about the welfare of the men and women employed by BAe, but I don't do so at the expense of allowing a company to break the law simply because it could 'make lots of money and allow it to retain its work force'.
I am not baying for anyone's blood, but i'd have liked to have been able to turn around to detractors of this country - and there are many who see us as hypocrites - and told them that we had done the right thing in investigating it, and found nothing to warrant further action (or, conversely, that the individuals concerned had been called to account). I don't care whether they’d have believed me; so long as I believed it myself, that would be all that mattered.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Biggest Beach in the World
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember you only know what the press what you to know about this matter. 'BAE innocent of corruption' would hardly give the pinko journos an excuse to bash them now would it. There is more at stake here than UK Plc being able to have the pompous attitude of we're whiter-than-white, whilst every other arms dealing country does what is required to seal the deal.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan, I don't think we are very far apart in our opinions, just a subtley different approach. BAE stinks as a faceless corporation because, as I said before, the management doesn't do anything at all that doesn't suit BAE - I reiterate, I have lots of current first hand knowledge of the 'not team players' attitude.
But, there is an enormous amount at stake here that to my mind outweighs our desire to give BAE a kicking. It is in the national interest for any number of reasons (jobs, war on terrrrrrr, global strategic issues, economics). These things are a lot to give up so that we can strut around telling everyone how morally superior we are. The French will be impressed as they sneak in an take the contract. We live in a corrupt world, you only have to look at the internal workings of the EU and the commission. The US is not above applying significant pressure in other ways to get what they want.
If we were to continue this inquiry and antagonise the KSA into walking away from the contract, and perhaps diplomatic relations, the rest of the world will look upon is with pity not applaud our naive piety.
But, there is an enormous amount at stake here that to my mind outweighs our desire to give BAE a kicking. It is in the national interest for any number of reasons (jobs, war on terrrrrrr, global strategic issues, economics). These things are a lot to give up so that we can strut around telling everyone how morally superior we are. The French will be impressed as they sneak in an take the contract. We live in a corrupt world, you only have to look at the internal workings of the EU and the commission. The US is not above applying significant pressure in other ways to get what they want.
If we were to continue this inquiry and antagonise the KSA into walking away from the contract, and perhaps diplomatic relations, the rest of the world will look upon is with pity not applaud our naive piety.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan - assume you have more facts at your disposal than the Attorney General who, as i/c SFO, would have a little more access to relevant information than you.
I may not be the biggest fan of BAE myself but there would appear to be very little evidence, if any at all , to support the accusations of corruption involving BAE. Lots of suggestion (by The Guardian mainly) and an apparent regular flow of information to one news reporter in general (how ethical can that be) to keep the flow of interest here.
If this was you and no evidence was found to charge you, woudl you be happy with everyone assuming you were guilty. I guess not.
Just because BAE is a multi-national business does not make the situation any different. Innocent until proved guilty is the way our democracy works.
Note with interest that head of SFO, who so violently disagrees with the decision of Attorney General, has not fallen on his sword and resigned. Would that not have been expected, if he so firmly believed BAE was guilty of a crime?
And for him to say that he is sure that if the inquiry were to last for another 18 months, evidence would be found is quite rediculous. Not sure of any case for the prosecution that works in that way.
Agree with many media commentators. If the SFO has real, hard, factual evidence (whatever that may be) it should present it. Seems like it did, to the A-G and that his decision was not sufficient for a court case.
Through friends in the industry, I understand The Guardian has its teams digging around 'for dirt on BAE Systems' in both Czech Republic and South Africa again. Shall we start a sweep to see when the next article appears?
None of us, except The Guardian newspaper it seems, have an inside track into the workings of the SFO investigation. Trial by media, which appears to be its favoured option, is not admissible in court though!
I may not be the biggest fan of BAE myself but there would appear to be very little evidence, if any at all , to support the accusations of corruption involving BAE. Lots of suggestion (by The Guardian mainly) and an apparent regular flow of information to one news reporter in general (how ethical can that be) to keep the flow of interest here.
If this was you and no evidence was found to charge you, woudl you be happy with everyone assuming you were guilty. I guess not.
Just because BAE is a multi-national business does not make the situation any different. Innocent until proved guilty is the way our democracy works.
Note with interest that head of SFO, who so violently disagrees with the decision of Attorney General, has not fallen on his sword and resigned. Would that not have been expected, if he so firmly believed BAE was guilty of a crime?
And for him to say that he is sure that if the inquiry were to last for another 18 months, evidence would be found is quite rediculous. Not sure of any case for the prosecution that works in that way.
Agree with many media commentators. If the SFO has real, hard, factual evidence (whatever that may be) it should present it. Seems like it did, to the A-G and that his decision was not sufficient for a court case.
Through friends in the industry, I understand The Guardian has its teams digging around 'for dirt on BAE Systems' in both Czech Republic and South Africa again. Shall we start a sweep to see when the next article appears?
None of us, except The Guardian newspaper it seems, have an inside track into the workings of the SFO investigation. Trial by media, which appears to be its favoured option, is not admissible in court though!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Not Telling!
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems the septics are looking at the case with a view to claiming jurisdiction under its Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../23/nbae23.xml
The US could claim jurisdiction over the case under its Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) because the shares of BAE Systems, the company at the heart of the inquiry, are traded in New York as American Depository Receipts.
It would also be able to act because the SFO's two-year investigation found evidence to suggest that alleged payments of £300 million were made to an unnamed Saudi official via American banks.
It would also be able to act because the SFO's two-year investigation found evidence to suggest that alleged payments of £300 million were made to an unnamed Saudi official via American banks.