ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

true, there are some (5+1?) statement of facts by witness, that KEPCORP will pursue after all these have calmed down.. too much bad news all together is no good...

(26-12-2017, 05:29 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 10:51 AM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 12:18 AM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]I will be more worried if Top Mgmt really dunno as so much money are involved.

Cory

You know the money can appear to be used for legitimate purpose. That is where intermediaries come in. There are always agents, subcontractors, distributors etc, and they may be asked to sign an agreement that they will not engage in corrupt practice.  These people will charge agent fees, consultation fees, negotiate addiitonal discounts, have payment tied to successful closure of contract etc. Over they years it add up. Unless the top management rose through the ranks and have worked in third world countries (especially in sales related roles), they may not be aware.  CFO's who have minimal contact with customers normally will not know. For some, they just "act blur" and "don't want to know". In fact Keppel's denial specifically is against the allegation they authorized the bribe. Of course they did not.

How guilty are these companies if they did not authorize the bribe and the intermediary whose behaviour they cannot always control, ran afoul of the law? Even if they are guilty, what are they guilty of? Corruption or lax in control? Any legal or ethics expert can comment?

If it was the agents , subcontractors or distributors etc., initiated the bribery and not endorsed by Keppel , why should keppel agree to pay for the combined total penalty of more than US$422 million to resolve charges with authorities in the United States, Brazil and Singapore . Is the management of Keppel that niave or generous ?

I am just trying to explain how it is possible for the top management to be kept in the dark despite the amount of money involved. But you have raised a  valid question. Let me ask another question, can a person or company found guilty of corruption resolve the charges in this manner without a trial? To be found guilty of corruption has serious consequences. At the individual level, I think some KOM staff may have to face trial. Why not the company? Perhaps the company is guilty of something else and not corruption. Again comments from legal experts will be most welcome.

Perhaps we can draw some parallel with the 1MDB scandals and the punishment meted out. Certain individuals were sent to jail for cheating and money laundering. However banks like UOB, DBS, Credit Sussie were fined for "anti-money laundering (AML) requirements and control lapses". Different transgression. One is criminal, the other regulatory lapses.

They (mgmt) might have suspected something is amissed or even heard rumors in the wind from internally or the industry. But if you were in their position, would you have acted on it aggressively or let the dogs lie where they be?

http://www.todayonline.com/business/kepp...ay-experts


While corrupt practices may be rife in the offshore and marine sector particularly in some emerging markets, these companies ought to hold themselves to more stringent standards given the Singapore Government’s pristine reputation and tough stance against graft, the experts stressed.

“Like it or not, stakeholders will hold Keppel Corp to a higher standard by virtue of (Singapore’s state investment firm) Temasek Holdings being its largest shareholder. As a GLC, it will need to be even more stringent in embedding the right culture, and in sieving out corrupt, unethical and illegal practices,” said accounting associate professor El’fred Boo from the Nanyang Technological University’s Nanyang Business School.

Associate Professor Mak Yuen Teen, from the Department of Accounting at National University of Singapore Business School, added: “Even though we say that our GLCs are governed by their own boards and run by their own management, they are... still government-controlled companies with their shares held through Temasek. And as the controlling shareholder, Temasek has a stewardship role over the GLCs and need to hold the boards and management accountable

In recent years, several Singapore Technologies (ST) Marine executives — including its former group financial controller Ong Teck Liam and ex-chief operating officer Han Yew Kwang — have been hauled to court for conspiring with others to making petty-cash claims for fake entertainment expenses. The court had heard that corrupt payments were made by ST Marine — a subsidiary of defence conglomerate ST Engineering — to secure more business by bribing the employees of its customers who had sought ship repair services.

The latest case casts doubts on Keppel’s credibility, the experts pointed out.

“With this Petrobras case now being proven, there will be concerns as to whether there are other cases. It is very important for Keppel Group to do a thorough review of its businesses - especially in high risk industries and high risk countries,” said Assoc Prof Mak. “Any future lapses will have even greater implications.”

Some of the experts said that Keppel’s reputation could be hit by the bribery scandal, making it harder to win business deals.

Assoc Prof Mak added: “(The Keppel case) is very serious. We have never seen penalties of such scale for a Singapore company, although we have seen much larger penalties for some overseas multinational companies... It’s a wake-up call as Singapore companies do business overseas (and) this is a key risk they must pay attention to.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Ex-Keppel lawyer secretly cooperated with US in bribery probe: documents

[BOSTON] A former lawyer at Keppel Corp Ltd's oil rig building business secretly pleaded guilty and cooperated with US authorities before the Singapore-based company agreed to pay US$422 million to settle charges it bribed Brazilian officials, according to court documents.

Jeffery Chow, a former senior member of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd's legal department, cut a deal to help prosecutors in their probe of Keppel and other former executives, according to the documents unsealed on Tuesday in federal court in Brooklyn.

Chow, 59, pleaded guilty on Aug 29 to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as part of his deal to cooperate. He admitted to drafting contracts that were used to make bribe payments, according to court records.

"" Chow, 59, pleaded guilty on Aug 29 to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as part of his deal to cooperate. He admitted to drafting contracts that were used to make bribe payments, according to court records. ""

Usually lawyer acted on clients' instructions . Who instructed Chow to do that ?

(26-12-2017, 11:26 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps we can draw some parallel with the 1MDB scandals and the punishment meted out. Certain individuals were sent to jail for cheating and money laundering. However banks like UOB, DBS, Credit Sussie were fined for "anti-money laundering (AML) requirements and control lapses". Different transgression. One is criminal, the other regulatory lapses.

BUT Malaysian Authorities said no wrongdoing at all by ANY INDIVIDUAL over there. Hence, different jurisdictions, different practices.

(26-12-2017, 06:43 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 05:29 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 10:51 AM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 12:18 AM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]I will be more worried if Top Mgmt really dunno as so much money are involved.

Cory

You know the money can appear to be used for legitimate purpose. That is where intermediaries come in. There are always agents, subcontractors, distributors etc, and they may be asked to sign an agreement that they will not engage in corrupt practice.  These people will charge agent fees, consultation fees, negotiate addiitonal discounts, have payment tied to successful closure of contract etc. Over they years it add up. Unless the top management rose through the ranks and have worked in third world countries (especially in sales related roles), they may not be aware.  CFO's who have minimal contact with customers normally will not know. For some, they just "act blur" and "don't want to know". In fact Keppel's denial specifically is against the allegation they authorized the bribe. Of course they did not.

How guilty are these companies if they did not authorize the bribe and the intermediary whose behaviour they cannot always control, ran afoul of the law? Even if they are guilty, what are they guilty of? Corruption or lax in control? Any legal or ethics expert can comment?

If it was the agents , subcontractors or distributors etc., initiated the bribery and not endorsed by Keppel , why should keppel agree to pay for the combined total penalty of more than US$422 million to resolve charges with authorities in the United States, Brazil and Singapore . Is the management of Keppel that niave or generous ?

I am just trying to explain how it is possible for the top management to be kept in the dark despite the amount of money involved. But you have raised a  valid question. Let me ask another question, can a person or company found guilty of corruption resolve the charges in this manner without a trial? To be found guilty of corruption has serious consequences. At the individual level, I think some KOM staff may have to face trial. Why not the company? Perhaps the company is guilty of something else and not corruption. Again comments from legal experts will be most welcome.

With this latest news on the senior lawyer that make a deal, are we still so naive to still insist ? Maybe is our system or education but Singaporeans need to wise up to the "ugly side of humans".

Cory

(28-12-2017, 04:14 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 06:43 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 05:29 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 10:51 AM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]

(26-12-2017, 12:18 AM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]I will be more worried if Top Mgmt really dunno as so much money are involved.

Cory

You know the money can appear to be used for legitimate purpose. That is where intermediaries come in. There are always agents, subcontractors, distributors etc, and they may be asked to sign an agreement that they will not engage in corrupt practice.  These people will charge agent fees, consultation fees, negotiate addiitonal discounts, have payment tied to successful closure of contract etc. Over they years it add up. Unless the top management rose through the ranks and have worked in third world countries (especially in sales related roles), they may not be aware.  CFO's who have minimal contact with customers normally will not know. For some, they just "act blur" and "don't want to know". In fact Keppel's denial specifically is against the allegation they authorized the bribe. Of course they did not.

How guilty are these companies if they did not authorize the bribe and the intermediary whose behaviour they cannot always control, ran afoul of the law? Even if they are guilty, what are they guilty of? Corruption or lax in control? Any legal or ethics expert can comment?

If it was the agents , subcontractors or distributors etc., initiated the bribery and not endorsed by Keppel , why should keppel agree to pay for the combined total penalty of more than US$422 million to resolve charges with authorities in the United States, Brazil and Singapore . Is the management of Keppel that niave or generous ?

I am just trying to explain how it is possible for the top management to be kept in the dark despite the amount of money involved. But you have raised a  valid question. Let me ask another question, can a person or company found guilty of corruption resolve the charges in this manner without a trial? To be found guilty of corruption has serious consequences. At the individual level, I think some KOM staff may have to face trial. Why not the company? Perhaps the company is guilty of something else and not corruption. Again comments from legal experts will be most welcome.

With this latest news on the senior lawyer that make a deal, are we still so naive to still insist ? Maybe is our system or education but Singaporeans need to wise up to the "ugly side of humans".

Cory

You might want to read what I written again. I am asking some technical questions related to law and ethics. That is why I am seeking the opinion of legal experts. To be specific, I am trying to explore if it is possible to distinguish between the individual staff and the company. Does vicarious liability apply here? OK, slightly off topic for an investment forum.
BTW, I am proud of my Singapore education (yes my entire formal education is in Singapore). It did me no harm when I roamed the streets of third world countries and come face to face with corrupt officials. What naive? The scales fell from my eyes many moons ago lah !