Friday, October 23, 2009
Friday, October 02, 2009
AM MARRIED NOW
WE ARE TWO RATHER THAN ONE................
IF ONE FALLS...................ONE IS THERE TO PICK HIM/HER UP
IT IS THE BLESSEN FROM GOD....MADE FROM GOD
IF ONE FALLS...................ONE IS THERE TO PICK HIM/HER UP
IT IS THE BLESSEN FROM GOD....MADE FROM GOD
WE HAVE STARTED THE JOURNE.....LOOONG JOURNEY
.....SO HELP US GOD!
BAE SYSTEMS
SEE YOU IN COURT
A defence contractor and a fraud investigator brazen it out
PROSECUTION of BAE Systems, Europe’s biggest defence contractor, for alleged bribery came a step nearer on October 1st when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said it was referring the case to the attorney-general for permission to proceed. The SFO had been pressing BAE for an admission of guilt and a payment believed to be between £500m ($795m) and £1 billion for its dealings with officials in countries thought to include the Czech Republic, Romania, South Africa and Tanzania. The company has co-operated with the SFO but finally refused the deal, judging the figure too high and the case too weak.
The investigation is the biggest and most contentious in British corporate history. Arms sales are a dirty business and allegations that BAE, like some of its rivals, paid kickbacks to get foreign contracts have long swirled. In 2006 a separate investigation into payments to Saudi officials and members of the royal family, supposedly in exchange for a large arms contract in the 1980s, was shelved by the SFO, because of concerns that Saudi Arabia would otherwise cease to help combat terrorism.
BAE has maintained throughout that it made no irregular payments there or anywhere else, though it admitted last year that it has not always been ethically fastidious. It has, the company says, left itself open to accusations of “poor record-keeping”. That may now cost BAE dear, for Britain, accused for years of dragging its feet where corporate bribery is concerned, seems bent on making up for lost time.
Though Britain signed the OECD convention against bribery in 1997 and passed a law against it in 2001, the first successful prosecution of a British company for the offence of overseas corruption was concluded only on September 25th. Mabey & Johnson, a maker of steel bridges, was fined £6.6m by a London court after admitting to having bribed decision-makers in Jamaica and Ghana between 1993 and 2001. It also owned up to breaking UN sanctions governing Iraq’s “oil-for-food” programme in 2001 and 2002.
The company, which replaced five of its eight directors last year, reported itself to the SFO in February 2008, hoping for leniency. This is the model that the SFO hopes will prevail as it cracks down on corporate bribery: confession, co-operation and penalties set high enough to punish and deter but not so high as to cripple.
America’s Department of Justice, meanwhile, has also taken a robust interest in BAE’s overseas affairs. Since 2007 it has been looking into payments to officials in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. There is no firm evidence that BAE’s American business has yet suffered as a result, but the firm appealed last month against the award of a contract for trucks to an American rival. If the investigation goes against it, America’s penchant for jumbo penalties could make £1 billion look like peanuts.
A defence contractor and a fraud investigator brazen it out
PROSECUTION of BAE Systems, Europe’s biggest defence contractor, for alleged bribery came a step nearer on October 1st when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said it was referring the case to the attorney-general for permission to proceed. The SFO had been pressing BAE for an admission of guilt and a payment believed to be between £500m ($795m) and £1 billion for its dealings with officials in countries thought to include the Czech Republic, Romania, South Africa and Tanzania. The company has co-operated with the SFO but finally refused the deal, judging the figure too high and the case too weak.
The investigation is the biggest and most contentious in British corporate history. Arms sales are a dirty business and allegations that BAE, like some of its rivals, paid kickbacks to get foreign contracts have long swirled. In 2006 a separate investigation into payments to Saudi officials and members of the royal family, supposedly in exchange for a large arms contract in the 1980s, was shelved by the SFO, because of concerns that Saudi Arabia would otherwise cease to help combat terrorism.
BAE has maintained throughout that it made no irregular payments there or anywhere else, though it admitted last year that it has not always been ethically fastidious. It has, the company says, left itself open to accusations of “poor record-keeping”. That may now cost BAE dear, for Britain, accused for years of dragging its feet where corporate bribery is concerned, seems bent on making up for lost time.
Though Britain signed the OECD convention against bribery in 1997 and passed a law against it in 2001, the first successful prosecution of a British company for the offence of overseas corruption was concluded only on September 25th. Mabey & Johnson, a maker of steel bridges, was fined £6.6m by a London court after admitting to having bribed decision-makers in Jamaica and Ghana between 1993 and 2001. It also owned up to breaking UN sanctions governing Iraq’s “oil-for-food” programme in 2001 and 2002.
The company, which replaced five of its eight directors last year, reported itself to the SFO in February 2008, hoping for leniency. This is the model that the SFO hopes will prevail as it cracks down on corporate bribery: confession, co-operation and penalties set high enough to punish and deter but not so high as to cripple.
America’s Department of Justice, meanwhile, has also taken a robust interest in BAE’s overseas affairs. Since 2007 it has been looking into payments to officials in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. There is no firm evidence that BAE’s American business has yet suffered as a result, but the firm appealed last month against the award of a contract for trucks to an American rival. If the investigation goes against it, America’s penchant for jumbo penalties could make £1 billion look like peanuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)