Petrofac Share Discussion Threads

[warranty] 24/1/2020 09:23

Exactly timmy11, we know they won’t investigate US or other companies. Everybody and I do mean everybody, knows that to win contracts in that area, it was necessary to oil the wheels and it’s simply ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Why is it that this country seem to want to destroy perfectly legitimate companies just to appear to be saints?

[timmy11] 24/1/2020 09:14

after the iraq war us companies got the majority of contracts

dont tell me there were no bribes there?

will the sfo investigate us companies ???

[pogue] 24/1/2020 08:50

Clearly if Unaoil get off then all companies, including PFC, that allegedly used them to bribe Iraqis will get off too. I don't think Unaoil execs have a cat in hell's chance mind you its just about 'how guilty' they are proven and how that feeds down to the individual companies that used their services. The case will also give glimpses of how the SFO intend to prosecute the client companies of Unaoil I suggest.

[markbelluk] 24/1/2020 08:35

Thanks spob

John the SFO investigation into PFC directly hinges entirely through Unaoil I believe

[spob] 24/1/2020 08:03

yes i think it is worth following the case

[paa65] 24/1/2020 08:01

Yes it is relevant.Even though the court case is about Unaoil and SBM, Petrofac also used Unaoil for several years and the SFO have had an investigation into PFC open since May 2017.One PFC exec pleaded guilty to bribes last year. So far the SFO have failed to pin any more charges on PFC, but who knows what might come out in the current court case.Four more months of uncertainty for PFC it seems while this case progresses.

[johnrxx99] 24/1/2020 04:14

Is this relevant to PFC?

[spob] 24/1/2020 03:24

SFO accuses UK nationals of corrupt payments in Unaoil trial


Allegations date back to reconstruction of Iraqi oil sector after regime change



Kate Beioley in London yesterday

Financial Times




Agents of Monaco-based consultancy Unaoil paid some $6m in bribes to secure oil contracts worth $800m in Iraq, Britain’s Serious Fraud Office alleged on the first day of a trial that is part of a wider probe into corruption in the Middle Eastern country.

Ziad Akle, Paul Bond and Stephen Whiteley appeared at a hearing at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday facing counts of conspiracy to give corrupt payments relating to oil contracts in Iraq predominantly between 2009 and 2010. The three are British nationals.

The SFO’s allegations date back to the reconstruction of Iraqi oil industry after the overthrow of former president Saddam Hussein in 2003. In 2007, the Iraq Ministry of Oil sought to increase the country’s crude oil exports from 1.8m to 4.5m barrels a day within five years, which necessitated the building of new infrastructure.

In 2016, the SFO launched the sprawling investigation into Unaoil. The probe concerns alleged corruption in relation to oil contracts in Iraq at a time when international companies were seeking to win lucrative deals in the area.

Unaoil is alleged to have bribed the South Oil Company — the state-owned company put in charge of Southern Iraq’s oil resources — by paying an official named Oday Al Quoraishi in order to win contracts for two of the consultancy’s clients.

Ziad Akle was Unaoil’s territory manager for Iraq. He is charged with three offences of conspiracy to make corrupt payments. Paul Bond, formerly a senior sales manager with Unaoil client SBM Offshore, and Stephen Whiteley, the former vice-president of SBM Offshore, and later Unaoil’s general territories manager for Iraq are each charged with two counts. The three men have pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The court heard that Unaoil allegedly helped SBM win a contract for the supply of single point moorings, or SPMs — floating systems that allow tankers to load oil offshore — by paying bribes to Mr Al Quoraishi. The Monaco consultancy also secured another deal for Singaporean company, Leighton Offshore, to lay two pipelines and install the SPMs.

According to the SFO, Unaoil paid $6m in bribes to secure the two contracts, which were worth a total of $800m. The SFO alleges that Unaoil was paid for its help securing the contracts.

On Thursday, the SFO named Basil Al-Jarah, Unaoil’s country manager for Iraq, as a co-conspirator in the case.

Mr Al-Jarah, was a former sea captain often addressed affectionately as “the Captain”, according to barrister Michael Brompton, representing the SFO, and was particularly close to Ata Ahsani, Unaoil founder, who “likened him to the brother he . . . had never had”. Mr Al-Jarah has “already pleaded guilty” to the allegations he faces.

The jury was told on Thursday that Cyrus Ahsani, the former chief executive of Unaoil, and Saman Ahsani, the company’s former chief operating officer, were currently subject to US criminal proceedings.


The case continues.

[cybernest53] 23/1/2020 15:33

pogue... Of course you can always filter me! lol :)

[pogue] 23/1/2020 15:13

cybernest
get a grip of yourself, you don't like people posting on this board unless it addresses things that interest you so you tell me to stop posting about IR35, that is the actions of a grown up? Then you resort to name calling
Jeeze put the dummy back in.

[cybernest53] 23/1/2020 13:49

Knowing... That was an RNS on 16 January 2020 07:00



But.. thanks for trying to cheer us up! ;)

[pogue] 23/1/2020 12:03

11_percent
I don't think they will increase the rate they will pass the risk of paying back taxes and fines to the contractor. There are clauses in my contract that seems to state this already, clarification has been sought but still not forthcoming, but all it does is put us back to where we were pre IR35 albeit with a more defensible IR35 compatible contract.

I am still holding most of my core holding as I bought it as a bet PFC will escape with a smaller fine than they are budgeting for. Have sold all my other shares here that I was using as an oil price bet long ago and rolled it into gold as I highlighted at the time.

[11_percent] 23/1/2020 10:40

IR35,

My take is that costs/rates will go up. The industry will still want contractors who they can get rid of in a downturn. They will increase the rate, for the guys they want, to compensate for the tax paid.

Also, agree, its not in the PFC share price, will take at least 6 months to get clarity on the effect.

[pogue] 23/1/2020 09:38

johnrxx99
I don't think there is anything in the price for IR35 the majority of people, including the government, have no idea of the effect of it on this industry despite being lobbied by industry leaders. I don't think its a major long term problem mind you as the companies will have to accept that contractors are outside of IR35 and write contracts to that effect and that's it solved. Some may take longer than others to see the logic though and there will be costs there. I have nobody I know in PFC at the moment as the office near me is quiet so am not sure how they are approaching it.

[pogue] 23/1/2020 09:26

I like when people filter me it saves me talking to idiots that's why I encourage it. Hope the filter is still on D1nga.

[johnrxx99] 23/1/2020 07:14

Would it be a wild guess to suggest IR35 is "ïn the price"?

[pogue] 22/1/2020 21:40

Cybernest
the IR35 issue has massive implications for the industry in the UK and is far more relevant than a Goldman Sachs ramp that seems to interest you more.
Please put me on filter if you dont want to hear what is happening within the industry from people who actually work in it day to day.
Jeeze.