Thorleif Engers disputed this claim shows that the Økokrim were overconfident – Aftenposten

Every issue has two sides.

Rarely is it so true as in the korrupsjonssaken against four former executives of Yara – three of whom are now acquitted with final effect.

3rd-party-bio

There was a dense atmosphere in the Borgarting court of appeal on Friday morning. The defendant and the defenders stood in givakt while they waited on the magistrate and the jury. It was a grave.

For the defendant was much at stake in the appeal. In the district court, they were sentenced to unconditional prison sentences for gross corruption, or complicity to gross corruption.

the Case is spectacular. All the accused had been a member of the executive management team in one of Norway’s largest companies. Thorleif Enger was with the ceo for a number of years.

Økokrims victory

Yaras former legal director Ken Wallace is the only one who was found guilty in the court of appeal. He had responsibility or shared responsibility for that it was paid with money from Yara to the sons of leading officials in Libya and India.

There is, in each case, in isolation, a great victory for the Økokrim that Wallace was found guilty.

Yara has previously adopted a foretaksbot because of corruption. But the fine was adopted by a new management team, under ceo Ole Jørgen Haslestad. His predecessors have never admitted guilt.

Therefore, it is important for Practices: that the jury find that Yara has paid out money which is covered by the korrupsjonsparagrafen.

Norwegian companies have previously been punished for corruption. Highest on the list ranks may foretaksboten for Statoil in 2004, after the bribes to get into Iran.

This time, a former member of the executive management team, Ken Wallace, end up in prison. It makes the case even more dramatically.

In the district court was Wallace sentenced to an unconditional prison sentence of two years and six months. The prosecution la Friday afternoon down the assertion of prison in seven years.

Økokrims defeat

In the etterpåklokskapens clear light one can see it like this:

If Økokrim had nøyd with the prosecution of Wallace, would Økokrim had a brilliant day on Friday. The damning ruling in the court of appeal would have been standing as a Økokrims proudest victories.

But Økokrim tried something more.

the Prosecution would demonstrate that a chief can be tried for corruption if he does not intervene against agreements, and payments as he may not know other than the superficial.

Why was the president and ceo Thorleif Enger prosecuted, even though it never was alleged that he had been directly involved in the pengeutbetalingene.

Meadows got the highest penalty in the district court, in short, because he was toppsjefen. It should sent a signal to other leaders who do not know or want to know everything as close to the employees themselves.

This was Økokrims great ambition. But instead of victory ended with defeat in the court of appeal. Signaleffekten to other top corporate executives is a long way away.

An unfaithful servant, or a rotten system?

In the district court’s judgment was an important point that Wallace, the company’s legal director, not on its own be able to give the green light for the payout of the money. He had, after the district court’s reasoning, have the authority, express or implied, from the Meadows or the directors who ran the projects, “prosjekteierne”.

Therefore it is extra important that not only the Meadows, but also Daniel Clauw and Tor Holba was acquitted by the jury in the court of appeal. The last two were, more or less, “prosjekteiere” and responsible for the Yaras thrust to acquire contracts in Liyba and India.

It may give the impression that the jury are convinced that Ken Wallace acted entirely on your own, without authorization or instruction from any other.

When kjennelsene, three frifinnelser and a “guilty”, be seen in the context, to weaken the impression, despite foretaksboten, by Yara under Thorleif Enger was a corrupt company.

the Jury is a black box

It is not remarkable in itself that two courts come to the opposite result when skyldspørsmål to be determined. The cause can be as simple as that the district court and the lagretten – jury – assessed bevisenes weight different.

the district Court did explain its evaluation in a judgment on the 86 pages. The jury can answer yes or no on the issue of guilt, without justification. We therefore do not know how the district court and the court of appeal distinguishes the teams in their assessments.

This is a weakness of the juryordningen. Judgments are difficult to interpret when the appellate court comes to a different result than the district court.

One is in the least clear. Thorleif Enger Daniel Clauw and Tor Holba is found innocent and is entitled to be treated accordingly.