SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Paragraph 47 of the judgement reads:
"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 (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."
I'm as keen as anyone to kick BAE when it f*cks up a programme, or uses its monopolistic position to charge high prices, but kicking the company for corruption is grossly and grotesquely unfair.
I've personally heard senior people from BAE’s competitors praising the company’s approach to business.
One Exec from a big US manufacturer told me that: “BAE has a reputation within the industry for knowing that there is a line between bribery and the kind of gift-giving and payments to middlemen that is routine and entirely acceptable in the Middle East, and my take is that they make real efforts to stay on the right side of that line.”
BAE has an external, independent expert committee (including Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Philippa Foster Back, Director of the Institute of Business Ethics, and Sir David Walker, former chairman of Morgan Stanley) that evaluates the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is aggressively determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts.
The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered, which is why their gizzits to journos are so paltry and meagre!
It seems clear to me that BAE Systems has been the subject of what appears to be a concerted campaign by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and the Guardian newspaper, whose journalists appear to have stooped to some stunningly shabby and dirty tricks of their own, and which has published numerous articles alleging corruption by the company, and which maintains a ‘BAE Files’ microsite on its website.
While I understand that some within the RAF may deplore some things about 'British Wasteospace' I'd question the motives and sanity of anyone who put them higher on the 'bad guy list' than the Guardian or CAAT.
At the time of these alleged bribes (which are ANCIENT HISTORY, relating to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”
The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”
Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.
The inquiry is thought to have angered Saudi Arabia. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he was certain the right decision had been taken and that had the SFO investigation continued, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs.”
BAE says that it acted lawfully at all times, though it has been hamstrung in its response by the confidentiality agreements signed as part of the Al Yamamah agreement.
Sir Raymond Lygo, a former BAE chief executive, told me at Farnborough last time around (if I remember right) that there had been no secret payments.
"There was nothing untoward about the deal whatsoever. I was the one who won the contract and I would have known if anything was going on at the time. Naturally we paid agents, but there’s nothing illegal about that. It was absolutely in accordance with the law.”
So the SFO acted unlawfully in dropping the investigation.
It seems pretty clear to me that the investigation was a pointless waste of money in the first place, picking over the bones of a 20 year old arms deal which was conducted pretty cleanly anyway.
But "Major arms company does exactly what the Government tells it to" isn't much of a headline-grabbing story, I guess.
"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 (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."
I'm as keen as anyone to kick BAE when it f*cks up a programme, or uses its monopolistic position to charge high prices, but kicking the company for corruption is grossly and grotesquely unfair.
I've personally heard senior people from BAE’s competitors praising the company’s approach to business.
One Exec from a big US manufacturer told me that: “BAE has a reputation within the industry for knowing that there is a line between bribery and the kind of gift-giving and payments to middlemen that is routine and entirely acceptable in the Middle East, and my take is that they make real efforts to stay on the right side of that line.”
BAE has an external, independent expert committee (including Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Philippa Foster Back, Director of the Institute of Business Ethics, and Sir David Walker, former chairman of Morgan Stanley) that evaluates the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is aggressively determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts.
The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered, which is why their gizzits to journos are so paltry and meagre!
It seems clear to me that BAE Systems has been the subject of what appears to be a concerted campaign by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and the Guardian newspaper, whose journalists appear to have stooped to some stunningly shabby and dirty tricks of their own, and which has published numerous articles alleging corruption by the company, and which maintains a ‘BAE Files’ microsite on its website.
While I understand that some within the RAF may deplore some things about 'British Wasteospace' I'd question the motives and sanity of anyone who put them higher on the 'bad guy list' than the Guardian or CAAT.
At the time of these alleged bribes (which are ANCIENT HISTORY, relating to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”
The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”
Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.
The inquiry is thought to have angered Saudi Arabia. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he was certain the right decision had been taken and that had the SFO investigation continued, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs.”
BAE says that it acted lawfully at all times, though it has been hamstrung in its response by the confidentiality agreements signed as part of the Al Yamamah agreement.
Sir Raymond Lygo, a former BAE chief executive, told me at Farnborough last time around (if I remember right) that there had been no secret payments.
"There was nothing untoward about the deal whatsoever. I was the one who won the contract and I would have known if anything was going on at the time. Naturally we paid agents, but there’s nothing illegal about that. It was absolutely in accordance with the law.”
So the SFO acted unlawfully in dropping the investigation.
It seems pretty clear to me that the investigation was a pointless waste of money in the first place, picking over the bones of a 20 year old arms deal which was conducted pretty cleanly anyway.
But "Major arms company does exactly what the Government tells it to" isn't much of a headline-grabbing story, I guess.
Well said JN.
This is another non-story, and only persists because it is a favourite of The Grauniad, just as Diana is a favourite of The Daily Express. It is ancient history, even more so than the 'drunken driver kills Princess' story and deserves putting to bed.
The SFO had been investigating for how many years? And still had no evidence to bring charges. It is yet another waste of tax payers moneyand what will it achieve? Absolutely c0ck all! The deal was done. UK Plc benefitted. The losers are??????
This is another non-story, and only persists because it is a favourite of The Grauniad, just as Diana is a favourite of The Daily Express. It is ancient history, even more so than the 'drunken driver kills Princess' story and deserves putting to bed.
The SFO had been investigating for how many years? And still had no evidence to bring charges. It is yet another waste of tax payers moneyand what will it achieve? Absolutely c0ck all! The deal was done. UK Plc benefitted. The losers are??????
If the High Court ruled that the SFO acted unlawfully in dropping this case due to pressure from Goldsmith, that is hardly a 'Hmmm' matter.
The SFO must be allowed to continue their investigations. If all comes up clean, that will be an excellent result.
But high level political pressure leading to a suspension of investigations, no matter what you might think, Jacko, does make one smell a rat.
The SFO must be allowed to continue their investigations. If all comes up clean, that will be an excellent result.
But high level political pressure leading to a suspension of investigations, no matter what you might think, Jacko, does make one smell a rat.
Au contraire, my old fox.
This was a pointless, groundless investigation into the prime sub contractor in what was a 20 year old government to government deal. Any fair minded observer would conclude that it was obvious that BAE had done nothing wrong. This was an investigation that was looking at the wrong target, and there was (according to the attorney general) no real chance of a conviction.
However, a politically motivated investigation (driven by the Guardian and CAAT, ferfuxake) and cheered on by the UK's industrial competitors into this ancient deal, stood a very real chance of spoiling Anglo-Saudi Arabian relations.
Just when co-operation with the Saudis was most needed in the war against terror, and just as they were in the final stages of negotiating a vital aerospace deal.
The only rats that I smell are the unsavoury and unscrupulous muck-raking journos on the Guardian, and the loony lefties who constitute the CAAT and its supporters. And those who (for reasons of their own) cannot pass up any opportunity to kick BAE, whether deserved (as it often is) or not (as in this case).
Put this to bed, and the winners are UK taxpayers, UK plc, BAE Systems, the RAF and the RSAF.
The losers? Dassault. Lockmart. Boeing. The French and US taxpayers.
and Guardian-reading, sandal-wearing, Tofu-eating, lefty hippy to$$ers.
This was a pointless, groundless investigation into the prime sub contractor in what was a 20 year old government to government deal. Any fair minded observer would conclude that it was obvious that BAE had done nothing wrong. This was an investigation that was looking at the wrong target, and there was (according to the attorney general) no real chance of a conviction.
However, a politically motivated investigation (driven by the Guardian and CAAT, ferfuxake) and cheered on by the UK's industrial competitors into this ancient deal, stood a very real chance of spoiling Anglo-Saudi Arabian relations.
Just when co-operation with the Saudis was most needed in the war against terror, and just as they were in the final stages of negotiating a vital aerospace deal.
The only rats that I smell are the unsavoury and unscrupulous muck-raking journos on the Guardian, and the loony lefties who constitute the CAAT and its supporters. And those who (for reasons of their own) cannot pass up any opportunity to kick BAE, whether deserved (as it often is) or not (as in this case).
Put this to bed, and the winners are UK taxpayers, UK plc, BAE Systems, the RAF and the RSAF.
The losers? Dassault. Lockmart. Boeing. The French and US taxpayers.
and Guardian-reading, sandal-wearing, Tofu-eating, lefty hippy to$$ers.
Personally I wouldn't even wipe my bottom on The Grauniad.
My quotes are from The Times. Hardly an organ favoured by the lentilistas of whom you are so rightly scathing.
But the allegations of "Drop the case or we won't tell you about terrorists" have been described as a successful ploy by a foreign regime to pervert the course of British justice.
Losers? Truth, honesty and decency. Old fashioned values they may be, but some of us still hold them dear.
I see BAE Systems shares are down over 5% today.
My quotes are from The Times. Hardly an organ favoured by the lentilistas of whom you are so rightly scathing.
But the allegations of "Drop the case or we won't tell you about terrorists" have been described as a successful ploy by a foreign regime to pervert the course of British justice.
Losers? Truth, honesty and decency. Old fashioned values they may be, but some of us still hold them dear.
I see BAE Systems shares are down over 5% today.
BEags
Surely they are only losers if the CAAT and Grauniad allegations are proven? The SFO had been investigating for over 2 years and were no closer to an actual prosecution. Only when they started to try to investigate Saudi private bank accounts did the Saudis start crying foul. I think I would to, if the SFO started investigating my bank account for no real reason. Equally I am sure that those Saudi accounts hide lots of secrets that the Saudis, and probably lots of other interested parties, wouldn't want investigating.
According to the memos published in the case neither the then PM nor the then AG actually ordered the SFO to drop the case. Semantics maybe, but it is just possible that there is no wrong doing in this case.
Losers? Truth, honesty and decency
According to the memos published in the case neither the then PM nor the then AG actually ordered the SFO to drop the case. Semantics maybe, but it is just possible that there is no wrong doing in this case.
The press has largely followed the Guardian's lead, and the Times has done so with as much brainless alacrity as anyone.
It's journalists are cut from much the same muck-raking, scandal-seeking, morally indignant and morally bankrupt hypocritical and unscrupulous cloth as are the Guardian's.
Hardly any of the Broadsheets have defence specialists with any in-depth knowledge or long experience, and if Guardian or Times journos were on fire, I wouldn't spit on most of them.
And I say that as a journo myself.
Like you, I'm all for Truth, Honesty and Decency.
Truth: BAE was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.”
Honesty: The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act.
Decency: BAE has established an external, independent expert committee to evaluate the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts. The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered.
It's journalists are cut from much the same muck-raking, scandal-seeking, morally indignant and morally bankrupt hypocritical and unscrupulous cloth as are the Guardian's.
Hardly any of the Broadsheets have defence specialists with any in-depth knowledge or long experience, and if Guardian or Times journos were on fire, I wouldn't spit on most of them.
And I say that as a journo myself.
Like you, I'm all for Truth, Honesty and Decency.
Truth: BAE was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.”
Honesty: The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act.
Decency: BAE has established an external, independent expert committee to evaluate the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts. The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered.
LO
I wish.
The best 'bribe' I've had this year was to watch England play a very poor game of Rugby, after which I had to undergo one of the most unpleasant train journeys I've ever experienced.
That ranks right up there alongside the infamous Boeing cheeseboard!
JN
I wish.
The best 'bribe' I've had this year was to watch England play a very poor game of Rugby, after which I had to undergo one of the most unpleasant train journeys I've ever experienced.
That ranks right up there alongside the infamous Boeing cheeseboard!
JN
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
All very impressive but for all your passionate defence, you're wasting your time for precisely the reasons BEagle outlines: this is about whether Tony Blair as PM and Lord Goldsmith as AG acted legally in strong-arming the SFO to stop the enquiry because Prince Bandar popped into No 10 to have a quiet word.
The Court concluded that Bandar did indeed pop in and attempt to pervert the course of justice, which if you or I had done it, could have resulted in a criminal conviction and a period inside. And let's face it, despite all of the denials from No 10, the discovery of "national security" at precisely the time that the Typhoon was sale in the offing was pretty "convenient"...
Perverting the course of justice is a crime in the UK. Bribing foreign governments has been a crime in the UK for several years. So what if you don't like CAAT or Grauniad? Stop and thank them for protecting the rights that we hold dear.
And on the substance of the allegations: if I were Sir Dick Evans and I was so sure that I was innocent, I would have been very, very keen for the SFO investigation to continue and clear my company.
Of course, if there was something that may be "misunderstood" or was "outside company guidelines" or resulted from "complex rules that could be unintentionally misinterpreted" [insert any other weasel words you like], then you and Sir Dick may be slightly less keen for the SFO to reopen their investigation......
S41
All very impressive but for all your passionate defence, you're wasting your time for precisely the reasons BEagle outlines: this is about whether Tony Blair as PM and Lord Goldsmith as AG acted legally in strong-arming the SFO to stop the enquiry because Prince Bandar popped into No 10 to have a quiet word.
The Court concluded that Bandar did indeed pop in and attempt to pervert the course of justice, which if you or I had done it, could have resulted in a criminal conviction and a period inside. And let's face it, despite all of the denials from No 10, the discovery of "national security" at precisely the time that the Typhoon was sale in the offing was pretty "convenient"...
Perverting the course of justice is a crime in the UK. Bribing foreign governments has been a crime in the UK for several years. So what if you don't like CAAT or Grauniad? Stop and thank them for protecting the rights that we hold dear.
And on the substance of the allegations: if I were Sir Dick Evans and I was so sure that I was innocent, I would have been very, very keen for the SFO investigation to continue and clear my company.
Of course, if there was something that may be "misunderstood" or was "outside company guidelines" or resulted from "complex rules that could be unintentionally misinterpreted" [insert any other weasel words you like], then you and Sir Dick may be slightly less keen for the SFO to reopen their investigation......
S41
If anything happened, it happened 20 years ago, and the balance of the evidence is that BAE did exactly what the Govt told it to.
But even if there was something dodgy way back then, frankly, I don't care. We won a massively important order which preserved high value jobs and provided investment for improving UK kit, instead of letting the French or the Yanks (who were much less fastidious when it came to 'payments') grab the order.
And this pointless investigation into ancient history threatens jobs today.
I wouldn't find much to praise about Tony or Goldsmith, but if they did have the balls to quash this, in our national interest, then good for them.
It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.
And if the legal weasels don't like it, I'm not unduly bothered.
But even if there was something dodgy way back then, frankly, I don't care. We won a massively important order which preserved high value jobs and provided investment for improving UK kit, instead of letting the French or the Yanks (who were much less fastidious when it came to 'payments') grab the order.
And this pointless investigation into ancient history threatens jobs today.
I wouldn't find much to praise about Tony or Goldsmith, but if they did have the balls to quash this, in our national interest, then good for them.
It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.
And if the legal weasels don't like it, I'm not unduly bothered.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: berlin
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psychiatric help
I notice Beagle has a humongous chip when it comes to BAE.
But what's the truth behind it?
Maybe a session with a psychiatrist would reveal that one Christmas, Santa brought young Beagle an Airfix kit of the Lightning and that
Teddy Petter had neglected to include one of the wings.
Damn that outfit of northern monkeys
But what's the truth behind it?
Maybe a session with a psychiatrist would reveal that one Christmas, Santa brought young Beagle an Airfix kit of the Lightning and that
Teddy Petter had neglected to include one of the wings. Damn that outfit of northern monkeys
Squirrel41, thank you for restating the case so clearly.
Strangelove, I have nothing against any specific company. I do, however, detest corruption.
My Airfix Lightning was fine - it just needed a huge amount of weight to sit on its nosewheel!
And Jacko, you state "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission." How do you know that? Personally I would prefer the SFO to make such an announcement.
Strangelove, I have nothing against any specific company. I do, however, detest corruption.
My Airfix Lightning was fine - it just needed a huge amount of weight to sit on its nosewheel!
And Jacko, you state "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission." How do you know that? Personally I would prefer the SFO to make such an announcement.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - thanks for being so consistent, especially in defence of peple you clearly disagree with / loath. Voltarie would have been proud! 
Jacko
Forgive me for summarising your position, but it seems to be
(i) it was a long time ago
so it doesn't matter,
(ii) there may have been some dodgy stuff going on but since the Saudis were paying it's ok because it was them nicking their own cash
so it doesn't matter
(iii) everyone else did/does the same thing anyway
so it doesn't matter
and
(iv) if it's in the national interest then the government can do what the hell it wants, including acting illegally.
Points (i), (ii) and (iii) are just moral relativism, because I suspect you'd be slightly pied off if a British MP or civil servant nicked £1bn by adding it on to the procurement of something.
And as BEagle says not only is corruption morally wrong, but it rots government from the inside and the collapse of western-orientated autocracies in the Middle East is in my limited view a very significant medium-term threat to the UK based on what may replace it (think: Taliban with oil and lots of gucci weapons). We should at least not be promoting corruption in my view - and we should be showing the way forward through promoting the rule of law, not embarassingly shuffling it away into a neglected corner.
But point (iv) really worries me: do you really think that by invoking "national security" the executive can do whatever it wants? This is the road to perdition, mate.
Nonetheless Jacko, I owe you a vote of thanks, though I thought you were a journalist rather than a comedian:
It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.
Can you prove any of this? If so, pls forward the documents to the SFO who I'm sure would be delighted to receive it. Brown envelope optional.
S41
Jacko
Forgive me for summarising your position, but it seems to be
(i) it was a long time ago
so it doesn't matter,
(ii) there may have been some dodgy stuff going on but since the Saudis were paying it's ok because it was them nicking their own cash
so it doesn't matter
(iii) everyone else did/does the same thing anyway
so it doesn't matter
and
(iv) if it's in the national interest then the government can do what the hell it wants, including acting illegally.
Points (i), (ii) and (iii) are just moral relativism, because I suspect you'd be slightly pi
ed off if a British MP or civil servant nicked £1bn by adding it on to the procurement of something. And as BEagle says not only is corruption morally wrong, but it rots government from the inside and the collapse of western-orientated autocracies in the Middle East is in my limited view a very significant medium-term threat to the UK based on what may replace it (think: Taliban with oil and lots of gucci weapons). We should at least not be promoting corruption in my view - and we should be showing the way forward through promoting the rule of law, not embarassingly shuffling it away into a neglected corner.
But point (iv) really worries me: do you really think that by invoking "national security" the executive can do whatever it wants? This is the road to perdition, mate.
Nonetheless Jacko, I owe you a vote of thanks, though I thought you were a journalist rather than a comedian:
It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.
Can you prove any of this? If so, pls forward the documents to the SFO who I'm sure would be delighted to receive it. Brown envelope optional.
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 11th Apr 2008 at 15:50.
S41
No bribery has been proven, it has only been alleged, and after 2+ years investigation the SFO could not bring a case.
And that of course assumes that the allegations are correct; at present there is no proof that bribery has occured. Out of interest can you define 'several years'? 5? 10? 20?
Even if there was a bit of bribery does it really matter now. The contract was won, the money has been spent and as JN has tried to point out BAES now has anti-corruption measures in place.
Now then, one Bentley Brooklands at £230K divided by £24.99 = how many posts on PPRuNe......
Bribing foreign governments
has been a crime in the UK for several years
Even if there was a bit of bribery does it really matter now. The contract was won, the money has been spent and as JN has tried to point out BAES now has anti-corruption measures in place.
Now then, one Bentley Brooklands at £230K divided by £24.99 = how many posts on PPRuNe......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot understand why in the UK we are beating ourselves up over this matter. As far as one can tell the Saudis were spending Al Yamamah oil on themselves (or the chosen royals) using BAE as the travel agent. The oil was theirs to waste - either in the excesses of the royals or on support for second rate BAE aircraft.
If anybody should be beating themselves up about this it is the Saudis, not us.
Did Blair break the law - Yes. Did BAE break the law - no.
If anybody should be beating themselves up about this it is the Saudis, not us.
Did Blair break the law - Yes. Did BAE break the law - no.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland
The issue is not whether any bribery occurred or not: it is whether there was an attempt to pervert the cause of justice in shutting down the SFO investigation. And the Court has held that there was, and that this was illegal.
As I said before, being cleared by the SFO would be the best possible course for BAES and their reputation. Happily for them, this may now occur. Assuming of course that there is nothing to hide; Sir Dick E keeps protesting his innocence and that of the Company, so I'm sure that he's got nothing to worry about.
On your question: the UK ratified the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 2002 (see http://www.oecd.org/department/0,268..._1_1_1,00.html) and the UK is obliged to investigate potential corruption. Under Art 5
“Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”
In other words, the UK had voluntarily signed up to commitments which required it to act against bribery and expressly removed considerations of economic self interest from the mix.
The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act made it an offence for British firms to bribe foreigners.
"Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001 includes legislation on bribery and corruption. This came into force on 14 February 2002 to deter UK companies and nationals from committing acts of bribery overseas. These changes to the UK law on corruption and the full legislation are available on the following website: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm "
The source of this? British Embassy Warsaw website: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/ser...=1159200954121
Hope this helps,
S41
The issue is not whether any bribery occurred or not: it is whether there was an attempt to pervert the cause of justice in shutting down the SFO investigation. And the Court has held that there was, and that this was illegal.
As I said before, being cleared by the SFO would be the best possible course for BAES and their reputation. Happily for them, this may now occur. Assuming of course that there is nothing to hide; Sir Dick E keeps protesting his innocence and that of the Company, so I'm sure that he's got nothing to worry about.
On your question: the UK ratified the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 2002 (see http://www.oecd.org/department/0,268..._1_1_1,00.html) and the UK is obliged to investigate potential corruption. Under Art 5
“Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”
In other words, the UK had voluntarily signed up to commitments which required it to act against bribery and expressly removed considerations of economic self interest from the mix.
The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act made it an offence for British firms to bribe foreigners.
"Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001 includes legislation on bribery and corruption. This came into force on 14 February 2002 to deter UK companies and nationals from committing acts of bribery overseas. These changes to the UK law on corruption and the full legislation are available on the following website: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm "
The source of this? British Embassy Warsaw website: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/ser...=1159200954121
Hope this helps,
S41
Squirrel,
My personal views on the matter are irrelevant. I'm a washed up journo who didn't work hard enough at school to have a proper job.
Therefore summarising those parts of my posts which indicate my personal opinion are a waste of time. Let's concentrate on the facts, since they are more interesting.
At the time of these alleged bribes (which would have taken place 20 years ago, and which, if they happened, related to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not to today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”
The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor under the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”
Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.
Even in yesterday's judgement, it was made clear that:
"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 (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."
That's why I say "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission."
And let's repeat, for emphasis, the words of the judgement
"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."
Do I approve of the Saudis trying to apply pressure on the UK Government? No, I don't. But that is an entirely separate question and does not indicate that there was corruption.
My personal views on the matter are irrelevant. I'm a washed up journo who didn't work hard enough at school to have a proper job.
Therefore summarising those parts of my posts which indicate my personal opinion are a waste of time. Let's concentrate on the facts, since they are more interesting.
At the time of these alleged bribes (which would have taken place 20 years ago, and which, if they happened, related to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not to today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”
The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor under the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”
Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.
Even in yesterday's judgement, it was made clear that:
"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 (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."
That's why I say "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission."
And let's repeat, for emphasis, the words of the judgement
"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."
Do I approve of the Saudis trying to apply pressure on the UK Government? No, I don't. But that is an entirely separate question and does not indicate that there was corruption.
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."