ngoshwe
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 4,131
- 931
<H1>Prosecutors to push on with BAE deal
Prosecutors have vowed to press on with a deal to fine BAE Systems £30m in spite of judicial criticism of other agreements made to settle cases of suspected corporate corruption.
The Serious Fraud Office hopes to bring the matter to court before the summer break after months of delay stemming from legal complications including a court challenge to its so-called plea bargain with the arms maker.
Lawyers said the SFO's decision carried risks and, whatever the outcome, would have an impact on other cases involving alleged graft by big business, particularly where the probes were transatlantic.
Richard Alderman, SFO director, said the agency was pulling together papers quickly to bring on the case agreed with BAE in February, under which the company would admit to a minor accounting offence and pay £30m in penalties.
"Clearly it's complex and the documentation will be extensive," Mr Alderman said in an interview. "We all want to get this before the court as soon as we can." Mr Alderman said the date for a hearing was a matter for the courts, although people familiar with the case said the agency was keen to avoid creating another hiatus by leaving the matter until after the summer holidays.
The SFO would be bringing the case under the terms originally envisaged, Mr Alderman said, even though judges had raised concerns about agreements it had struck with corruption suspects in prosecutions in the past few months involving Innospec, a Cheshire-based chemicals company, and John Dougall, a former healthcare executive.
"Clearly there is much for us to learn from the guidance given to us by judges in Innospec and Dougall," he said. "We are determined to learn from that and to ensure that the cases we bring in the future satisfy the judges."
Lawyers said the SFO will have to proceed carefully to avoid antagonising the judiciary into throwing out a case that is not only its highest profile action against a company but also potentially a template for future deals with businesses embroiled in international probes into suspected graft.
Under the agreement, BAE, which has also agreed to pay $400m (£265m) in fines in the US, will admit to accounting irregularities under the 1985 Companies Act in relation to the sale of a radar system to Tanzania. The company has always denied bribery and will not admit it as part of the prosecution.
Lawyers said one risk facing the deal was that judges might question whether the technical offence charged was the right one given the underlying conduct. Another possibility was that the judiciary might query whether it was lawful to charge BAE under the Companies Act, since some legal experts say it is possible to argue the offence is meant to apply only to individuals.
A third potential complication, legal experts said, was that judges might feel they were being presented with an unwanted fait accompli on sentencing. The proposed structure of the punishment is unusual, with part of the £30m earmarked to pay whatever fine the court imposes, with the remainder to be given to Tanzania as reparations.
BAE said that its representatives were working with the SFO as it, too, wanted the matter finalised. Like the agency, it stressed that it recognised the final decision on sentencing rested with the courts.
</H1>FT.com / UK - Prosecutors to push on with BAE deal
Prosecutors have vowed to press on with a deal to fine BAE Systems £30m in spite of judicial criticism of other agreements made to settle cases of suspected corporate corruption.
The Serious Fraud Office hopes to bring the matter to court before the summer break after months of delay stemming from legal complications including a court challenge to its so-called plea bargain with the arms maker.
Lawyers said the SFO's decision carried risks and, whatever the outcome, would have an impact on other cases involving alleged graft by big business, particularly where the probes were transatlantic.
Richard Alderman, SFO director, said the agency was pulling together papers quickly to bring on the case agreed with BAE in February, under which the company would admit to a minor accounting offence and pay £30m in penalties.
"Clearly it's complex and the documentation will be extensive," Mr Alderman said in an interview. "We all want to get this before the court as soon as we can." Mr Alderman said the date for a hearing was a matter for the courts, although people familiar with the case said the agency was keen to avoid creating another hiatus by leaving the matter until after the summer holidays.
The SFO would be bringing the case under the terms originally envisaged, Mr Alderman said, even though judges had raised concerns about agreements it had struck with corruption suspects in prosecutions in the past few months involving Innospec, a Cheshire-based chemicals company, and John Dougall, a former healthcare executive.
"Clearly there is much for us to learn from the guidance given to us by judges in Innospec and Dougall," he said. "We are determined to learn from that and to ensure that the cases we bring in the future satisfy the judges."
Lawyers said the SFO will have to proceed carefully to avoid antagonising the judiciary into throwing out a case that is not only its highest profile action against a company but also potentially a template for future deals with businesses embroiled in international probes into suspected graft.
Under the agreement, BAE, which has also agreed to pay $400m (£265m) in fines in the US, will admit to accounting irregularities under the 1985 Companies Act in relation to the sale of a radar system to Tanzania. The company has always denied bribery and will not admit it as part of the prosecution.
Lawyers said one risk facing the deal was that judges might question whether the technical offence charged was the right one given the underlying conduct. Another possibility was that the judiciary might query whether it was lawful to charge BAE under the Companies Act, since some legal experts say it is possible to argue the offence is meant to apply only to individuals.
A third potential complication, legal experts said, was that judges might feel they were being presented with an unwanted fait accompli on sentencing. The proposed structure of the punishment is unusual, with part of the £30m earmarked to pay whatever fine the court imposes, with the remainder to be given to Tanzania as reparations.
BAE said that its representatives were working with the SFO as it, too, wanted the matter finalised. Like the agency, it stressed that it recognised the final decision on sentencing rested with the courts.
</H1>FT.com / UK - Prosecutors to push on with BAE deal
</H1>Prosecutors in the U.K.s Serious Fraud Office have promised to push through their controversial settlement with BAE Systems over the companys alleged corrupt conduct, according to a story published (subscription required) in the Financial Times Monday.
A BAE McDonnell-Douglas AV8B used by the U.S. Marines. (Wikimedia Commons)
According to the story, SFO Director Richard Alderman said the office was putting together legal documents to bring to court concerning the settlement worked out with BAE in February.
Clearly its complex and the documentation will be extensive, Alderman told the FT. We all want to get this before the court as soon as we can.
The SFO announced on Feb. 5 that BAE, one of the worlds largest weapons manufacturers, had agreed to plead guilty to failing to keep reasonably accurate accounting records in relation to its activities in Tanzania. The U.S. Justice Department simultaneously announced that BAE would pay $400 million in fines for making false statements to the U.S. government about its anti-corruption efforts.
Under the U.K. agreement, BAE will pay £30 million to Tanzania. In turn, the SFO will end its investigation into widespread allegations of BAE bribery and corruption around the world. The SFO settlement was immediately criticized as a slap on the wrist for a company that has allegedly paid millions in bribes.
But according to the FT article, SFO prosecutors hope bring the case to court before the summer break in August. The settlement has been delayed for months, in part because of a court challenge to the plea bargain by two advocacy groups.
The settlement could also face criticism from the judiciary, the story said. U.K. judges have recently criticized plea agreements struck by the SFO in two other cases, one involving chemical manufacturer Innospec and a second concerning John Dougall, a former marketing executive at Johnson & Johnsons U.K. subsidiary, Depuy International. While the plea agreements were eventually approved in both cases, the judges voiced concern about the judiciarys absence from the deal-making process.
UK Prosecutors Readying Controversial BAE Deal For Court – Main Justice
