Excellent analysis by Senior Councel Harpreet Singh on the failure to prosecute the Keppel corruption case, and CPIB not pursuing the case further.
In this commentary published in Singapore Law Watch, I analyse the (Singapore) Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s recent decision not to prosecute six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) for US$55 million in bribes paid to Brazilian officials.
I argue that given the large amount of evidence available of the bribery scheme, “it is difficult to appreciate the decision not to prosecute based on the CPIB’s limited explanation. Add to this the fact that KOM itself has openly admitted its involvement in the bribery and paid a massive US$422 million fine; this is one of the largest bribery scandals in Singapore’s history; the corrupt acts involved the wholly owned subsidiary of a Singapore public listed company; senior management of KOM were implicated; the pattern of criminal conduct extended over a decade; and huge sums in bribes were involved.”
I note that “failure to prosecute cases like the present without strong justification, when the facts appear glaring, is highly damaging”. The CPIB’s press release giving broad reasons for the non-prosecution decision raises more questions than answers. I suggest that since incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore, the authorities should instead give a detailed justification for the decision.
Among other observations, I conclude, “when it comes to our national commitment to incorruptibility and the rule of law, we will be judged not just by what we say, but equally by what we do.”
———
“Questions That Must Be Asked:
The CPIB’s decision may well be justified for reasons which have not been fully explained in its overly general press release. Whether that is so will very much depend on the answers to some key questions.
(a) With such extensive evidence already available, what exactly is the missing evidence against the six individuals, if any, without which an effective prosecution cannot be mounted?
(b) Have none of the six individuals made any admission(s) or given helpful evidence to the CPIB in respect of that missing evidence?
(c) Is that evidence not available as part of the “voluminous evidence and information” that KOM uncovered as part of its “thorough internal investigation” or through the CPIB’s own investigations, including using digital forensics tools?
(d) Who are the so-called “key witnesses” who are located overseas? Even if they are not named, what was their role in the bribery, and is their evidence so crucial that a conviction cannot be secured without their testimony?
(e) To the extent that “many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions”, are they not part of the “foreign documents” that KOM obtained and forwarded to the DOJ? At any rate, how important are these foreign documents to secure a conviction, and why?
(f) If the foreign evidence is indeed crucial, has assistance been sought from foreign authorities? If so, has such assistance been refused?
(g) Is the evidence in this case such that not even a single individual was sufficiently blameworthy to warrant a prosecution?
In this commentary published in Singapore Law Watch, I analyse the (Singapore) Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s recent decision not to prosecute six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) for US$55 million in bribes paid to Brazilian officials.
I argue that given the large amount of evidence available of the bribery scheme, “it is difficult to appreciate the decision not to prosecute based on the CPIB’s limited explanation. Add to this the fact that KOM itself has openly admitted its involvement in the bribery and paid a massive US$422 million fine; this is one of the largest bribery scandals in Singapore’s history; the corrupt acts involved the wholly owned subsidiary of a Singapore public listed company; senior management of KOM were implicated; the pattern of criminal conduct extended over a decade; and huge sums in bribes were involved.”
I note that “failure to prosecute cases like the present without strong justification, when the facts appear glaring, is highly damaging”. The CPIB’s press release giving broad reasons for the non-prosecution decision raises more questions than answers. I suggest that since incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore, the authorities should instead give a detailed justification for the decision.
Among other observations, I conclude, “when it comes to our national commitment to incorruptibility and the rule of law, we will be judged not just by what we say, but equally by what we do.”
———
“Questions That Must Be Asked:
The CPIB’s decision may well be justified for reasons which have not been fully explained in its overly general press release. Whether that is so will very much depend on the answers to some key questions.
(a) With such extensive evidence already available, what exactly is the missing evidence against the six individuals, if any, without which an effective prosecution cannot be mounted?
(b) Have none of the six individuals made any admission(s) or given helpful evidence to the CPIB in respect of that missing evidence?
(c) Is that evidence not available as part of the “voluminous evidence and information” that KOM uncovered as part of its “thorough internal investigation” or through the CPIB’s own investigations, including using digital forensics tools?
(d) Who are the so-called “key witnesses” who are located overseas? Even if they are not named, what was their role in the bribery, and is their evidence so crucial that a conviction cannot be secured without their testimony?
(e) To the extent that “many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions”, are they not part of the “foreign documents” that KOM obtained and forwarded to the DOJ? At any rate, how important are these foreign documents to secure a conviction, and why?
(f) If the foreign evidence is indeed crucial, has assistance been sought from foreign authorities? If so, has such assistance been refused?
(g) Is the evidence in this case such that not even a single individual was sufficiently blameworthy to warrant a prosecution?
