Corruption case against the four former bigwigs fertilizer company Yara enters its final phase when the procedures starting Monday. In two extenders months previously CEO Thorleif Enger and three colleagues from the top management had to respond to accusations of gross corruption in Libya and India.
The case is one of very few international corruption cases that have been tried for Norwegian law. Because the case involves high amounts paid to the sons of eminent public officials in the two countries, and because Økokrim believes that senior management in approved bribes, the matter is referred to as Norway Historiens most serious corruption. All four defendants deny culpability, arguing both in Libya and India are talking about ordinary consultancy agreements, not bribery.
In an international context, the case far from unique, according to a review OECD has done. The organization has undergone over 400 international corruption cases that have been processed in the 42 countries that have joined the OECD anti-corruption convention. It shows that:
- In 57 percent of cases were bribes used to obtain government contracts
- In 53 percent of cases was management of the company involved or informed about the bribes
- In 27 percent of cases were bribes offered state companies
- Heads of state and ministers were recipients of bribes in 5 percent of cases
Round amount and tax havens
– The report confirms the suspicion that management is often informed bribes. But when cases come to court, they owe each other, said corruption expert at the University of Bergen, Tina Søreide. She was Økokrim experts and has testified in Yara case.
She also points out a number of other aspects of the case that recur in corruption cases internationally.
– Payments goes to intermediaries, transaction attempted hidden, there is often talk of round amounts, and using banks in countries associated with secrecy. The report found striking many transactions to state companies. It’s interesting, because these firms are often in a unique position when it comes to controlling foreign establishment in the country, says Søreide.
Yara has already admitted guilt for the conditions and adopted a corporate fine and confiscation of assets totaling almost 300 million, and thus avoided lawsuit against the company. Far more than half of OECD issues also ended with fines, 82 cases ended with confiscation, while 80 cases resulted in prison sentences. The four Yara peaks risk up to 10 years in prison if they are convicted.
The US has been pushing to prosecute companies that pay bribes abroad, and has accounted for the majority of cases in the statistics.
Dark figures
– Internationally strong focus on cash flows coming from this kind of bribery. Yara case, and also the public familiar issues related to Statoil, Kongsberg Group and Telenor / Vimpelcom, shows that we have a challenge with the international bribery cases in Norway, and probably it is unrecorded, says corruption fighter in Selmer, Helge Kvamme.
A year ago, Kongsberg group charged with gross corruption in Romania. According Økokrim company should have paid “substantial amount” of bribery in the country, where they partly delivered communications equipment to police and border control. Last fall, it became clear that the Telenor daughter VimpelCom is accused of having paid nearly 1.7 billion in bribes to dictator-daughter Gulnara Karimov in Uzbekistan. The case is being investigated in the Netherlands, and has so far before a parliamentary hearing in Norway.
Kvamme shows that most cases that have been processed by the Norwegian courts applies to employees and managers in companies that receive offers gifts, trips and dinners or enriching themselves through corrupt relationship between customer and supplier.
– Exports corruption
Transparency International has collected all corruption judge who is pronounced in Norway since corruption provisions were amended in 2003. A review Aftenposten has done shows that only three of these are companies that have paid bribes abroad (see fact box). Two of the cases ended with fines to companies and acquitted senior. The last ended with two sentenced middle managers, while undertaking went free because the Supreme Court considered the case had taken too long.
– Norway always come good on the international corruption index, but it only measures how much Norwegian officials possible bribe. The international issues that have come up in the past shows that we may behave differently in other countries, exporting corruption, says the head of Transparency Norway, Guro Slettemark.
This is very harmful, especially when money goes to non-democratic regimes and helps to consolidate the positions of those in power who can not be replaced by choice, as in Libya, believes Slettemark.
Must prove innocence
– Evidence of financial flows are important in such matters, and it is particularly focused on payments that go to regime leaders and their families. It pops up relatives of government employees at the receiver side there is a large, red flag, he said.
– In the United States the burden of proof in practice almost reversed in such cases – unless companies can demonstrate that they have done thorough surveys and can document the delivery of competent, it ends happily with fines, he adds.
Tina Søreide believes it is very important that companies are increasingly held accountable for their actions abroad, but stresses that this must not overshadow the importance of international pressure the authorities to do more to fight corruption in their own country.
– In some markets continuing corruption with another company if a company is taken and punished, she said.
stine.barstad@aftenposten.no
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment