KUALA LUMPUR: In the latest twist to the submarines deal, a French portal reveals that it was the Malaysian government which paid 114 million euros (RM493.59 million at current value) to Perimekar Sdn Bhd, of which Abdul Razak Baginda’s wife was the majority shareholder.
Quoting sources cited by the plaintiffs in an ongoing legal suit, Rue89 said that it was not the French company Amaris which paid the commission.
This contradicts the stand taken by the Malaysian government. Deputy Defence Minister Zainal Abidin Zin had said in Parliament in 2006 that the commission was not paid by the government.
Zainal Abidin was reported by the local media as saying that the French company paid the commission for a coordination and support services project.
“We did not pay commission to anyone as claimed by Lim (Kit Siang), and the commission was paid voluntarily by France,” said Zainal Abidin, as quoted by the Star on Dec 7, 2006.
“We cannot stop them if they want to give a commission. All the expenditure by the ministry had been tabled in Parliament and audited,” he had said.
The Malaysian Defence Ministry repeated this in a statement on April 2007, as reported by the New Straits Times, that the government did not pay any commission to Perimekar for the purchase of the submarines.
The ministry added that the local company was appointed only to provide the support services and co-ordination as it was a more effective method.
The ministry paid one billion euros to Amaris for the two Scorpene and one Agosta submarines, for which Perimekar received the 11% commission from the French contractor.
However, the Rue89 report claimed that the Malaysian government paid the sum, “with the sole purpose of circumventing the OECD Conventionon (on combating bribery of foreign public officials in International Business Transactions).”
The purchase of the submarines, which also implicated Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who was the then defence minister, had been enveloped in sorts of allegations.
The brutal murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu in Malaysia was also linked to the matter, after Abdul Razak, a close aide of Najib, was charged with abetting the murder. He was later acquitted.
It was speculated that Altantuya, an interpreter who acted as intermediary for the contract, was killed for having loudly demanded her share of the commission. Both Najib and the authorities denied this.
Below is the English translation of the Rue89 report, originally titled “Sous-marins malaisiens : la piste des rétrocommissions se précise”:
Further legal action is due to be initiated in the next few days, with Suaram, a Malaysian NGO dedicated to the fight against corruption and member of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), applying to join proceedings as a civil party, which already applied for a judicial review in November 2009.
Suaram would thereby have access to the details of the investigation, which is also a way to force the prosecution service to contact an examining magistrate, the last step before a trial that could last for years.
As was the case for contracts won by the DCN for submarines to Pakistan and frigates to Taiwan, there are increasing suspicions of retrocommissions to French political parties. This case concerns the sale of two Scorpène submarines and an Agosta submarine to the Malaysian government. A contract worth approximately one billion euros, that was signed in 2002 with the Malaysian DCNS (former DCN, Department of Naval Construction) and Thalès.
Model’s body blown up with explosives
Sex, murder, bribery, and suspicions (of) retrocommissions: the cocktail is explosive. It all started with the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaaribu, a young model, interpreter and also an intermediary in this contract. Her body was found in the Malaysian jungle after being blown apart with explosives.
The young woman appears to have been assassinated for having loudly demanded her share of the commission in an arms deal, in which the other parties involved were her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, a friend and adviser of the other person involved, Najib Tun Razak, then Malaysia’s minister of defence and now the country’s prime minister.
However, this shady affair hides another, which the French courts took note of. In December 2009, Suaram filed an initial suit against X at the Paris court for “active and passive corruption, trading of favours and abuse of corporate assets”.
The state prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin then opened a preliminary investigation.
At the time, it was suspected that a bribe of 114 million euros had been paid by the company Armaris (a subsidiary of DCNI and Thalès) to Najib and his entourage, through the company Perimekar.
This company, which was officially established to “coordinate” the sale of the three submarines, had Abdul Razak Baginda’s wife as its majority shareholder.
France in violation because of the OECD Convention
However, in the suit filed in December 2009, the plaintiffs argued, that in light of the way the company operated,
…“there is no doubt that this legal entity (Perimekar) was created with a single goal: to organise the payment of commission and distribute the amount amongst the different beneficiaries – Malaysian officials and/or Malaysian or foreign intermediaries.”
However, this contract was signed after the OECD Convention came into force in France in 2000, which punishes corruption of foreign public officials with 10 years imprisonment and a 150,000 euro fine. Following this complaint, a preliminary investigation was conducted by the prosecution: the hearings were made and searches were made at the premises of DCNS and Thalès.
Revealed in September 2008, the note books of Gérard-Philippe Menayas, former chief financial officer of the DCN, who was indicted in the Karachi Case, also confirmed the suspicion of hidden commissions. In his memorandum (PDF), Menayas mentioned the Malaysian submarine contract as follows:
“Since the entry into force of the OECD Convention regarding the fight against corruption in September 2000, only two contracts have been signed; the first with India, and the second with Malaysia in 2002. These two contracts are the result of commercial actions undertaken prior to the OECD Convention. Furthermore, they are both suspected of non-compliance with this Convention. I have evidence to support this.”
At the time of the contract’s signature, Alain Richard was the minister of defence, in Lionel Jospin’s government (Socialist Party).
Three commissions instead of one
With the forthcoming indictment, and the revival of this case, new items had been contributed to the case by the plaintiffs.
First, according to sources cited by the plaintiffs, it was not the company Armaris that paid 114 million euros to Perimekar, but rather the Malaysian government, “with the sole purpose of circumventing the OECD Convention”.
This is a true revelation, while the Malaysian (deputy) minister of defence ended up “confessing” to the payments made by foreign companies to Perimekar.
Where did this money go? Were there retrocommissions to French politicians?
Secondly, there appeared to be not one, but three commissions. In addition to that of 114 million euros, there are two further instalments:
• one paid by the DCNI to the commercial networks of Thalès, for over 30 million euros, corresponding to “commercial fees relating to the negotiation and execution of the contract”;
• the other for 2.5 million euros.
However, according to Gerard Philippe Menayas:
“Until the OECD Convention against corruption came into force in France, no contract for the sale of defence equipment to an emerging country could take place without the payment of commissions to policy-makers (euphemistically called ‘commercial fees for exports’ or ‘FCE’).”
The second commission was paid by Thalès to a recipient, who remains unknown, in order to convince the Malaysian government of the need to conduct additional work.
Finally, according to the complaint filed by the firm Bourdon, Suaram’s lawyer, the company Gifen, which was established by Jean-Marie Boivin in Malta, intervened in the negotiations “so as to facilitate the money transfers in this case”, and particularly finance the trips of Baginda and Altantuya.
The “catch” is that Jean-Marie Boivin is also cited in the Karachi case… for his role in the system for supplying slush funds to political parties. (Source FMT)
No comments:
Post a Comment