-
-
Government has planned to deploy a SriLankan Airlines charter flight to China to bring back 150 local students living in the coronavirus-affected Chengdu City in Sichuan Province within the next 48 hours, Additional Secretary to the President, Admiral Jayanath Colombage said.Comment
-
Comment
-
Airbus to pay ?3.6bn over 'endemic' bribery in world's largest settlement
Judges on Friday approved a record ?3.6bn (?3bn, $3.9bn) settlement to be paid by French plane maker Airbus (AIR.PA) over allegations of bribery.
A judge in London approved a deferred prosecution agreement struck between the UK?s Serious Fraud Office and Airbus.
The deal will see Airbus pay ?991m (?832m, $1bn) to UK authorities as part of a global settlement worth ?3.6bn. The settlement ends probes in the UK, France, and United States and is ?the world?s largest global resolution for bribery?, the SFO said.
Airbus has been under investigation by the SFO for four years over allegations external consultants used by the company paid bribes in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Ghana between 2011 and 2015. The investigation was launched after Airbus discovered inconsistencies in disclosures made about external consultants.
?Airbus paid bribes through agents around the world to stack the decks in its favour and win contracts around the globe,? said Lisa Osofsky, director of the SFO.
?Corruption like this undermines free trade and fair development and it is to Airbus?s credit that it has admitted its culpability, cleaned its house and come forward to put this conduct to bed.?
The global investigation ? which covered many more countries than those the SFO looked into ? involved reviewing over 30m documents, according to Friday?s judgement.
Incidents uncovered by the investigation include:
A $50m sponsorship of a sports team owned by two AirAsia executives that investigators claim was meant to induce more plane orders;
$2m paid to the wife of a Sri Lankan Airlines executive through a Brunei shell company;
$3.3m paid to senior staff at Indonesia?s national airline;
Millions paid to secure order for military aircrafts from the Ghanaian government.
Dame Victoria Sharp, the judge who approved the settlement, said bribery was ?endemic? within Airbus?s civilian and military aircraft sales businesses.
?The seriousness of the criminality in this case hardly needs to be spelled out,? the judge said in a statement. ?As is acknowledged on all sides, it was grave. The conduct took place over many years. It is no exaggeration to describe the investigation it gave rise to as worldwide, extending into every continent in which Airbus operates.?
The US Department of Justice will receive ?525m (?441m, $581.8m) from Airbus as part of the settlement. French regulators will receive ?2.08bn (?1.6bn, $2.2bn).
Airbus earlier this week announced it had reached a settlement but didn?t specific the size of the deal. The company did not immediately respond for a request to comment on Friday.
Source:Yahoo newsComment
-
SriLankan Airline exec?s wife offered US$16mn bribe for Airbus deal: Court filing
Saturday February 1, 2020 11:29:04
ECONOMYNEXT ? Airbus aviation group had offered a 16 million US dollar bribe to the wife an employee of Sri Lanka?s state airline for a large aircraft order, and at least two million dollars were paid to a ?straw company? set up in Brunei, court records show.
The agent had dealt with Airbus as late as October 2015, the filings said.
While UK laws allow agents to be paid commissions, they must be experienced independent consultants, with no connections to the customer, who can canvass business and bring in customers.
In 2013, Airbus had engaged the wife of a SriLankan Airlines employee, who had no aerospace experience, as a business partner (BP) or agent through a company registered in Brunei identified as Intermediary I, in court documents.
?Airbus employees offered up to 16.84 million dollars to the company of Intermediary 1 to influence the purchase of 10 Airbus aircraft and the lease of an additional 4 aircraft,? the documents said.
?In fact only US$2mn of the 16.84 million was paid to the company of Intermediary I.?
Airbus had asked for export credits from UK Export Finance, which had raised concerns over the payment to the agent.
?To disguise the identity of the BP, Airbus employees misled UKEF as to her name and sex,? the filing said.
On March 29, 2013 Airbus had signed a deal with Intermediary 1, for the sale of 6 A330 aircraft, 4 A350 aircraft and the lease of an additional 4 A350 aircraft.
The intermediary was to be paid 1 million for the delivery of each A330 aircraft and 1.16 million dollars for each A350 aircraft leased by SriLankan Airlines.
On October 30, 2015, Airbus signed another agreement, saying Intermediary 1 would get 5 million US dollars if SriLankan did not buy any competitor aircraft before that date.
British, French and US authorities had conducted a joint investigation into Airbus over bribes offered to various airlines.
The SriLankan probe was done by UK?s Serious Frauds Office, which also investigated deals in Taiwan, Malaysia, Ghana, and Indonesia.
Airbus will pay 991 million Euros to UK, 2.06 billion US dollars to France and 557 million dollars to the US, or a total of 3.6 billon Euros.
(Colombo/Feb01/2020)
Source: Economy nextComment
-
Airbus Corrupt Deals with UL
The whole report can be downloaded here:
V. COUNT 2 [SRI LANKA]
Statement of Offence
Failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery, contrary to Section 7 of the
Bribery Act 2010
Particulars of Offence
Between 1 July 2011 and 1 June 2015 Airbus SE failed to prevent persons associated
with Airbus SE from bribing others concerned with the purchase of aircraft by
SriLankan Airlines from Airbus, namely directors and/or employees of SriLankan
Airlines, where the said bribery was intended to obtain or retain business or advantage
in the conduct of business for Airbus SE.
Summary
88. In 2013, Airbus engaged Intermediary 1, the wife of SriLankan Airlines (?SLA?)
Executive 1, as a BP through a straw company which was registered in Brunei.
Intermediary 1 had no aerospace expertise. Pursuant to the engagement, Airbus
employees offered up to US$16.84 million to the Company of Intermediary 1 to
influence SLA?s purchase of 10 Airbus aircraft and the lease of an additional 4
aircraft. In fact, only US$2 million of the US$16.84 million was paid to the
Company of Intermediary 1. The Company of Intermediary 1 was approved by
20
Airbus employees as a BP. To disguise the identity of the BP, Airbus employees
misled UKEF as to her name and sex.
VI. FACTS
A. Introduction
89. SLA is the national carrier of Sri Lanka. The Government of Sri Lanka was the
99.1% owner of SLA.
90. The Company of Intermediary 1 was a straw company registered in Brunei and,
at the time of incorporation on 5 October 2012, had one sole shareholder and one
director: namely Intermediary 1. The Company of Intermediary 1 had no
experience or personnel working in the airline sales industry. Airbus employee 8
[senior] (Airbus SMO International) supported the appointment of the Company
of Intermediary 1, despite his compliance staff raising concerns. On 22 March
2013, the sub-CDSC approved the appointment of the Company of Intermediary
1. On 12 June 2013, the sub-CDSC acknowledged that this execution of the
proposed contract with the Company of Intermediary 1 had already taken place.
91. On 29 March 2013, Airbus and the Company of Intermediary 1 entered into a
consultant agreement in relation to the sale of 6 A330 aircraft, the sale of 4 A350
aircraft and the lease of an additional 4 A350 aircraft. Pursuant to this agreement
the Company of Intermediary 1 would be paid US$1 million on the delivery of
each A330 aircraft and US$1.16 million for each A350 aircraft purchased by SLA
and US$300,000 for each additional A350 aircraft leased by SLA. On 30 October
2015 Airbus also signed a market share agreement, which stipulated that the
Company of Intermediary 1 would receive a US$5 million lump sum if SLA did
not purchase any competitor aircraft before 30 October 2015.
B. The Aircraft Orders
92. At the Paris Airshow on 19 June 2013, pursuant to a purchase agreement SLA
ordered 6 A330 aircraft. These aircraft were delivered. On 28 June 2013, SLA
ordered 4 A350 aircraft under a second purchase agreement. These aircraft have
not been delivered.
Date of Purchase
Agreement
Airline Aircraft
1 19 June 2013 SLA 6 x A330
2 28 June 2013 SLA 4 x A350
Table 3
21
C. The payments to Company of Intermediary 1
93. The promised payments were up to US$16.84 million.
94. On 26 August 2013, the Company of Intermediary 1 submitted an invoice for the
first US$1 million pursuant to the consultant agreement. However, as Airbus only
paid agents in Euros, the Company of Intermediary 1 was required to set up a
Euro account at Standard Chartered Bank to receive payment. In agreeing this
change, Airbus employees corresponded with SLA Executive 1, using his private
Gmail account and on 13 November 2013, SLA Executive 1 submitted a
replacement invoice. Airbus received from SLA Executive 1 a further invoice
for an additional US$1 million on 2 December 2013. Payment was approved by
Airbus employee 1 [senior] and Airbus employee 9 [senior] (Airbus SMO) and
US$2 million was paid in Euros to the Company of Intermediary 1 (i.e.
?1,454,651.24) on 27 December 2013.
Date of Payment Amount of payment US$ Recipient of payment
1 27 December 2013 2,000,000 Company of Intermediary 1
Table 4
D. UKEF
95. Sometime between December 2013 and November 2015, SLA entered into a sale
and lease back agreement with an aviation leasing company, for five of the A330
aircraft. Pursuant to this agreement the aviation leasing company would purchase
the aircraft from Airbus and lease them to SLA. Four of the aircraft were due to
be delivered in February, July, September and December 2015.
96. In November 2014 Airbus employees submitted an application for export credit
financing to UKEF in respect of 4 A330 aircraft, the first of which was to be
delivered at the end of February 2015. The application required disclosure of any
agent or consultant involved in the purchase agreement. Airbus indicated that it
had used an agent on the SLA negotiation and it wished to invoke the Special
Handling Process within UKEF. This process ensured that only a small number
of individuals within UKEF would be provided with the agent?s details. UKEF
would then perform due diligence on the agent. On or around 4 February 2015
Airbus submitted the agent details to UKEF. Airbus employee 1 [senior] had
signed the Agent Declaration, thereby acknowledging that the information
contained therein could be relied upon by UKEF. The agents? details submitted
falsely suggested that Intermediary 1 was a ?he?, and that the consultant
agreement accurately reflected the total amount Airbus would pay. There was no
mention of the market share agreement commission.
97. UKEF informed Airbus of their dissatisfaction with the agent details provided
and asked a series of questions, including why the agent was employed when their
CV suggested they had little aviation experience and why the agent was domiciled
and paid outside of Sri Lanka.
22
98. On 13 February 2015 Airbus provided answers to UKEF?s questions. The
answers referred to the agent as both a ?he? and ?she? and again Airbus did not
mention the market share agreement despite a request by UKEF for confirmation
there were no other payments from Airbus to the Company of intermediary 1.
UKEF asked Airbus to confirm that its agent was not the wife of SLA Executive
1. On 26 February 2015, Airbus asserted to UKEF that the agent was not the wife
of SLA Executive 1 and that the agent had no connection to SLA. Airbus
employee 10 passed information he received from Airbus employee 11 (Airbus
SMO International) in an email (answers by Airbus in bold) to a UKEF employee:
?Our research has identified the wife of the [SLA Executive 1] as having the same name as the one
we have been given. Please confirm that this is not a party to this issue and is not your agent. This
is an homonymy but certainly not the same person. She is not a party to this issue and she is
not our agent. We assume this is a coincidence but could you also confirm that your agent has no
connection to the airline, its personnel or family members of staff and executives at the airline. We
confirm.?
99. On 27 February 2015, UKEF personnel spoke with Airbus employee 10 and
Airbus employee 8 [senior]. This call did not alleviate UKEF?s concerns and
following it Airbus employee 10 emailed Airbus employee 12 explaining:
?the truth is most unfortunate?
100. To which Airbus employee 12 replied:
?we know the truth I suspect but is that what we are intending to inform [UKEF]??.
101. On 2 March 2015 Airbus employee 10 reported to Airbus employee 12 and Airbus
employee 4 [very senior]:
?? [Airbus employee 1 [senior]] and Co have decided to answer to UKEF and thus take the risk
to be demonstrated that Airbus was not compliant. How long will it take to convince UKEF??
102. On or around 12 March 2015 Airbus withdrew its application from UKEF. On 1
April 2016, UKEF reported this and other matters disclosed to it by Airbus to the
SFO.Comment
-
More news comingThe whole report can be downloaded here:
V. COUNT 2 [SRI LANKA]
Statement of Offence
Failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery, contrary to Section 7 of the
Bribery Act 2010
Particulars of Offence
Between 1 July 2011 and 1 June 2015 Airbus SE failed to prevent persons associated
with Airbus SE from bribing others concerned with the purchase of aircraft by
SriLankan Airlines from Airbus, namely directors and/or employees of SriLankan
Airlines, where the said bribery was intended to obtain or retain business or advantage
in the conduct of business for Airbus SE.
Summary
88. In 2013, Airbus engaged Intermediary 1, the wife of SriLankan Airlines (?SLA?)
Executive 1, as a BP through a straw company which was registered in Brunei.
Intermediary 1 had no aerospace expertise. Pursuant to the engagement, Airbus
employees offered up to US$16.84 million to the Company of Intermediary 1 to
influence SLA?s purchase of 10 Airbus aircraft and the lease of an additional 4
aircraft. In fact, only US$2 million of the US$16.84 million was paid to the
Company of Intermediary 1. The Company of Intermediary 1 was approved by
20
Airbus employees as a BP. To disguise the identity of the BP, Airbus employees
misled UKEF as to her name and sex.
VI. FACTS
A. Introduction
89. SLA is the national carrier of Sri Lanka. The Government of Sri Lanka was the
99.1% owner of SLA.
90. The Company of Intermediary 1 was a straw company registered in Brunei and,
at the time of incorporation on 5 October 2012, had one sole shareholder and one
director: namely Intermediary 1. The Company of Intermediary 1 had no
experience or personnel working in the airline sales industry. Airbus employee 8
[senior] (Airbus SMO International) supported the appointment of the Company
of Intermediary 1, despite his compliance staff raising concerns. On 22 March
2013, the sub-CDSC approved the appointment of the Company of Intermediary
1. On 12 June 2013, the sub-CDSC acknowledged that this execution of the
proposed contract with the Company of Intermediary 1 had already taken place.
91. On 29 March 2013, Airbus and the Company of Intermediary 1 entered into a
consultant agreement in relation to the sale of 6 A330 aircraft, the sale of 4 A350
aircraft and the lease of an additional 4 A350 aircraft. Pursuant to this agreement
the Company of Intermediary 1 would be paid US$1 million on the delivery of
each A330 aircraft and US$1.16 million for each A350 aircraft purchased by SLA
and US$300,000 for each additional A350 aircraft leased by SLA. On 30 October
2015 Airbus also signed a market share agreement, which stipulated that the
Company of Intermediary 1 would receive a US$5 million lump sum if SLA did
not purchase any competitor aircraft before 30 October 2015.
B. The Aircraft Orders
92. At the Paris Airshow on 19 June 2013, pursuant to a purchase agreement SLA
ordered 6 A330 aircraft. These aircraft were delivered. On 28 June 2013, SLA
ordered 4 A350 aircraft under a second purchase agreement. These aircraft have
not been delivered.
Date of Purchase
Agreement
Airline Aircraft
1 19 June 2013 SLA 6 x A330
2 28 June 2013 SLA 4 x A350
Table 3
21
C. The payments to Company of Intermediary 1
93. The promised payments were up to US$16.84 million.
94. On 26 August 2013, the Company of Intermediary 1 submitted an invoice for the
first US$1 million pursuant to the consultant agreement. However, as Airbus only
paid agents in Euros, the Company of Intermediary 1 was required to set up a
Euro account at Standard Chartered Bank to receive payment. In agreeing this
change, Airbus employees corresponded with SLA Executive 1, using his private
Gmail account and on 13 November 2013, SLA Executive 1 submitted a
replacement invoice. Airbus received from SLA Executive 1 a further invoice
for an additional US$1 million on 2 December 2013. Payment was approved by
Airbus employee 1 [senior] and Airbus employee 9 [senior] (Airbus SMO) and
US$2 million was paid in Euros to the Company of Intermediary 1 (i.e.
?1,454,651.24) on 27 December 2013.
Date of Payment Amount of payment US$ Recipient of payment
1 27 December 2013 2,000,000 Company of Intermediary 1
Table 4
D. UKEF
95. Sometime between December 2013 and November 2015, SLA entered into a sale
and lease back agreement with an aviation leasing company, for five of the A330
aircraft. Pursuant to this agreement the aviation leasing company would purchase
the aircraft from Airbus and lease them to SLA. Four of the aircraft were due to
be delivered in February, July, September and December 2015.
96. In November 2014 Airbus employees submitted an application for export credit
financing to UKEF in respect of 4 A330 aircraft, the first of which was to be
delivered at the end of February 2015. The application required disclosure of any
agent or consultant involved in the purchase agreement. Airbus indicated that it
had used an agent on the SLA negotiation and it wished to invoke the Special
Handling Process within UKEF. This process ensured that only a small number
of individuals within UKEF would be provided with the agent?s details. UKEF
would then perform due diligence on the agent. On or around 4 February 2015
Airbus submitted the agent details to UKEF. Airbus employee 1 [senior] had
signed the Agent Declaration, thereby acknowledging that the information
contained therein could be relied upon by UKEF. The agents? details submitted
falsely suggested that Intermediary 1 was a ?he?, and that the consultant
agreement accurately reflected the total amount Airbus would pay. There was no
mention of the market share agreement commission.
97. UKEF informed Airbus of their dissatisfaction with the agent details provided
and asked a series of questions, including why the agent was employed when their
CV suggested they had little aviation experience and why the agent was domiciled
and paid outside of Sri Lanka.
22
98. On 13 February 2015 Airbus provided answers to UKEF?s questions. The
answers referred to the agent as both a ?he? and ?she? and again Airbus did not
mention the market share agreement despite a request by UKEF for confirmation
there were no other payments from Airbus to the Company of intermediary 1.
UKEF asked Airbus to confirm that its agent was not the wife of SLA Executive
1. On 26 February 2015, Airbus asserted to UKEF that the agent was not the wife
of SLA Executive 1 and that the agent had no connection to SLA. Airbus
employee 10 passed information he received from Airbus employee 11 (Airbus
SMO International) in an email (answers by Airbus in bold) to a UKEF employee:
?Our research has identified the wife of the [SLA Executive 1] as having the same name as the one
we have been given. Please confirm that this is not a party to this issue and is not your agent. This
is an homonymy but certainly not the same person. She is not a party to this issue and she is
not our agent. We assume this is a coincidence but could you also confirm that your agent has no
connection to the airline, its personnel or family members of staff and executives at the airline. We
confirm.?
99. On 27 February 2015, UKEF personnel spoke with Airbus employee 10 and
Airbus employee 8 [senior]. This call did not alleviate UKEF?s concerns and
following it Airbus employee 10 emailed Airbus employee 12 explaining:
?the truth is most unfortunate?
100. To which Airbus employee 12 replied:
?we know the truth I suspect but is that what we are intending to inform [UKEF]??.
101. On 2 March 2015 Airbus employee 10 reported to Airbus employee 12 and Airbus
employee 4 [very senior]:
?? [Airbus employee 1 [senior]] and Co have decided to answer to UKEF and thus take the risk
to be demonstrated that Airbus was not compliant. How long will it take to convince UKEF??
102. On or around 12 March 2015 Airbus withdrew its application from UKEF. On 1
April 2016, UKEF reported this and other matters disclosed to it by Airbus to the
SFO.
Comment
Tweet
Comment