Petrofac Share Discussion Threads

[pogue] 01/2/2020 08:19

hxxps://www.cityam.com/airbus-agrees-to-pay-record-e991m-uk-fine-in-e3-6bn-global-bribery-settlement/
Totally unrelated case the SFO charged Airbus for not preventing employees bribing people. I think this is how they proceed in most cases, and as I said in PFC's case, as the burden of proof is easier, all you have to do is find one person guilty and the company is guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent rather than the usual innocent until proven guilty.

'Allison Clare, a barrister for the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), told a crowded courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice that Airbus had been accused of five counts of failure to prevent bribery, which were now suspended for three years.

Clare said the UK settlement “exceeds the combined sum of all previous UK DPAs”.

Airbus was ordered to pay a €983m fine and costs to the SFO of €8m. The fine consisted of a disgorgement of profits of €585m and a financial penalty of €398m.

The allegations related to an Airbus department which worked with overseas agents which it paid for successful aircraft sales.'

[pogue] 31/1/2020 12:28

Yes they have a confession but I think the SFO want to prove Unaoil are guilty of bribing others first before going with that one as an employee saying he gave money for bribes to Unaoil is one thing but to have Unaoil proven to have bribed Iranian officials is another and completes the circle. All depends on what evidence they have I guess.

[1cripes] 31/1/2020 12:16

But with PFC they’ve already proved the employee did it?

[pogue] 31/1/2020 11:49

1cripes
forgot about that, above still valid though if they want to pursue later. I think this is the plan for PFC, prove 'it was the employee what dunnit' then work backwards.
All guesswork based on the few facts out there so if anyone can add or subtract happy to hear.

[pogue] 31/1/2020 11:47

The court case on just now is against Unaoil employees, if they are found guilty then the law I posted will comes into force and the owners will have to prove they had sufficient training and procedures in place to try and combat 'rogue' employees bribing people. I bet they didn't and the SFO know this so win this case and they get the owners as well. It makes things easier for SFO if they pursue the easiest way to get a conviction as they don't have the manpower or budget for loads of cases to goto court.

[1cripes] 31/1/2020 11:43

The SFO dropped the case because the Yanks were progressing it is as I remember it. DYOR

[wolfhound1] 31/1/2020 11:35

@pogue - SFO had charges against the 3 founders of Unaoil and dropped the charges without explanation - does that not indicate that they are no longer going after unaoil ?

[pogue] 31/1/2020 07:26

cybernest
yes that's what I believe nothing will happen until a case of bribery is proven against Unaoil. SFO do not have the manpower or money to run all the investigations at the same time. So far they have just asked questions and where there is no obvious case to answer see below for what they will do later I believe.

Wolfhound
if the employees are guilty then the organization is as well so senior management will have a case to answer so they are not off the hook they just are not in the dock right now again you have to prove the bribery took place first this is the pivotal case.
From my post the other day
hxxps://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/articles/the-us-approach-to-bribery-involving-foreign-officials/
'The UK’s Bribery Act also has the added provision of offences whereby an organisation can be incriminated if it fails to prevent bribery: Section 7 of the Act states that a commercial organisation will be found guilty of a bribery offence if a person associated with the organisation has been found guilty of bribing another individual. The only defence that the organisation can have is that it had adequate procedures in place to protect against bribery and corruption. If the organisation cannot demonstrate that it has implemented such adequate policies it will be at risk of prosecution.'

[binarypilot] 31/1/2020 07:12

"Yes I was doing oil business in the Wild West that was post-invasion Iraq, but I never paid any sweeteners to anyone."


Yeh, alright mate!

[cybernest53] 31/1/2020 00:06

"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."

Source:

[wolfhound1] 30/1/2020 23:51

I understood the case against 3 founders/owners was dropped unexpectedly lasy yr by SFO. See my previous post for link.

So is this a case against 3 former employees/ middle management as individuals and no longer Unaoil ?

[cybernest53] 30/1/2020 23:48

Put neatly in a Unaoil nutshell Pogue! Except of course, where PFC is concerned, there may be nothing happening in terms of charges, as yet... but there has been plenty of investigating gone on during the last two or three years. They're just keeping their powder dry, waiting for the outcome of the Unaoil trial... at least that's how I read it.

[1cripes] 30/1/2020 22:15

No case to answer. DYOR

[1cripes] 30/1/2020 22:14

Pogue. V sensible. I agree.

[pogue] 30/1/2020 21:49

I disagree. If Unaoil are proven guilty then bribing took place. Until that is proven you cannot accuse/convict someone else of paying Unaoil to bribe someone. There has to be a crime for there to be a criminal hence there is nothing happening just now on the PFC case as they would just be wasting their time.

[1cripes] 30/1/2020 21:21

Asfari has already been interviewed. I accept that this trial is still influential but only if there is new fact and evidence that might, might, cast doubt on what PFC directors knew. That’s as I see it. DYOR.

[pogue] 30/1/2020 17:26

1cripes
if Unaoil are found guilty of bribery then that means their clients will be asked some probing questions as to why they were paying them money and more than likely taken to trail to prove they were too stupid to understand what Unaoil were doing. This trial is pivitol to many other investigations.

[oohrogerpalmer] 30/1/2020 17:11

Always the double / triple whammy with things like this.
The share price more or less halved when the news broke a couple of years ago and now suffering when the trial of others start.No doubt it will suffer again when our trial starts.
Will be a good buy if we knew where the bottom was!!!!

[1cripes] 30/1/2020 14:59

There isn’t a PFC trial, not yet at least and there is nothing currently in the public domain that suggests there will be.

[binarypilot] 30/1/2020 14:21

and thats not even the PFC trial. Watch the drop when that starts!

and the drop again if they get a fine.

and now they have to bid for work while being squeaky clean, while their competitors continue with their brown paper bags.

Complete horror show this.

[cybernest53] 29/1/2020 15:03

@11%... If you mean the Unaoil bribery trial I have seen estimates between 3 and 4 months in different press reports. As Killman implies, difficult to say.

[killman2] 29/1/2020 13:23

3 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 25 mins, 56 secs +- 2 secs followed by a long piece of string, then we can say we are out the mire completely :-)

[11_percent] 29/1/2020 11:48

How long is the trial set to go on.