BAE's 'bribery' channel |
Publication |
Mail and Guardian |
Date | 2011-06-24 |
Reporter | Sam Sole, Stefaans Brummer |
Web Link | www.mg.co.za |
The cache of documents obtained by the M&G Centre include BAE internal
memorandums dating from the mid-1990s.
A first memorandum outlined the sheer scale of BAE's payments to an army
of "marketing advisers" helping to lubricate arms sales across the
globe. In 1995, 225 "brass-plate advisers" got a total of £25-million
(R275-million) and 74 "confidential advisers" another £21-million
(R230-million).
A second memorandum considered alternatives to hide such payments. "It
has been suggested that in order to increase security and
confidentiality of marketing adviser payments, consideration should be
given to the possibility of making these payments through a company set
up for the purpose and given a name which has no connection with BAE.
For the purposes of this note the company is called JBL (Joe Bloggs
Ltd)," the memorandum stated.
It listed three alternatives. The first, according to which BAE business
units would deal with the advisers but pay them through Joe Bloggs Ltd,
was considered risky as "the wide circulation in BAE ... would continue"
and "the system would deter casual observers but would still be obvious
to anyone investigating".
A second alternative -- transferring liaison with the advisers from
business units to BAE headquarters at Farnborough near London -- was
considered "still transparent if investigated".
The third alternative, which was eventually chosen, involved
incorporating Joe Bloggs Ltd offshore "with sufficient expert directors
(and staff?) to be credible". It would pay the advisers with funds
transferred from BAE headquarters "in round numbers blocks", which in
turn would be derived from levies imposed on BAE business units.
The "advantages" included that paperwork could be stored offshore;
business units would know no more than the amount of marketing levy they
paid to headquarters; and "the arrangements can be justified if
investigated and would be difficult to penetrate anyway".
A separate memorandum considered how business units would know by how
much to inflate prices for their weapons if they did not have details of
how much would flow back to the "advisers". The solution: headquarters
would simply inform business units of "percentage enhancements" to slap
on their pricing. These could be described in company records as "HQ
management charges etc".
Another memorandum confirmed an instruction that "covert paperwork
should be removed offshore" -- Switzerland was eventually chosen. It
recommended that, record at headquarters should be limited to the
minimum.
"There are about 350 covert agreements in existence so it is impossible
to remember them all. It will be necessary therefore to keep as a
minimum a single computer listing at Farnborough, preferably on an
easily removable laptop."
US charges
The US state
department's charge sheet against BAE -- called a "proposed charging
letter" because it was a civil matter -- takes up the story: "In
February 1998, respondent [BAE] engaged Uniglobe Aktiengesellschaft, a
trust company in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, to create Red Diamond Trading
Ltd, an offshore company, located in the British Virgin Islands ...
Although not a subsidiary of respondent, Uniglobe structured Red Diamond
in a manner in which Red Diamond could not act without respondent's
written agreement ...
"The purpose of Red Diamond was to facilitate payments to third-party
brokers hired by the respondent ... There were approximately 350 covert
agreements with 299 brokers. Red Diamond operated with intent to
circumvent the normal payments reviews."
All in all, according to the charges, Red Diamond made more than 1 000
covert payments to brokers -- another word for BAE's "marketing
advisers" -- over the nine years of its existence. This period, 1998 to
2007, corresponds with a massive flow of funds to Hlongwane and a
handful of others who helped BAE clinch its South African sales.
The state department charges were an outflow of a US criminal
investigation into contraventions by BAE of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. BAE settled it in March last year by pleading a lesser
charge that did not involve knowingly bribing officials, and paying a
$400-million (R2.8-billion) fine. No reference was made to the South
African deal.
After the plea, the state department required BAE to come clean on
contraventions of the US Arms Export Control Act, which is intended to
control arms sales involving US technology and prevent bribery by
requiring broker fees to be reported.
According to the charging letter, the British company came clean on
broker payments it should have reported in respect of deals to sell or
lease Saab’s Gripens to the Czech Republic and Hungary.
When the state department reviewed further Gripen deals, it discovered
that no broker fees had been declared when it issued a licence in 2002
authorising the export of US technology for the Gripens that BAE and
Saab were selling South Africa.
This was contradicted by evidence the department obtained: "Respondent
[BAE] or its representative, Red Diamond, made payments to brokers
involved in securing the sale to South Africa. Respondent failed to
disclose payments as required."
This, and a host of related offences revolving largely around the Red
Diamond payments, led to BAE's prompt settlement last month. The
$79-million fine it agreed to pay is the biggest of its kind the state
department has levied.
SA payments
Soon after Red Diamond
was formed in 1998, it appears to have become the vehicle of choice to
pay BAE's "advisers" on the South African deal, which was then being
finalised.
Among the documents obtained by the M&G Centre is an October 1998
contract between BAE and Arstow Commercial Corporation, a British Virgin
Isles company controlled by, among others, Hugh Thurston, who was
financial adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's
family.
The contract promised a commission of 1.5% on the sale of Hawks and
Gripens to South Africa. In April 1999, the contract was substituted by
another that promised the same 1.5% fee, but with Red Diamond replacing
BAE as the principal.
In September that year -- with the arms deal negotiations in their final
stage -- Arstow signed a contract with another entity, Westunity
Limited. The latter promised to "provide the services of Fana Hlongwane,
who will use his best efforts to promote the reputation and sale of the
product in the territory".
At the time, Hlongwane had only recently resigned as then-defence
minister Joe Modise's adviser.
A back-to-back contract, in turn, was signed between Westunity and
Hlongwane, who was to "promote the sales of the products of Westunity".
A British Serious Fraud Office list of transfers from Arstow's accounts
to Hlongwane through Westunity and another company in Hong Kong, which
is also part of the document trove, shows that the money started flowing
almost immediately. An amount of £100 000 (R1.1-million) was paid in
October 1999, shortly before the arms contracts were signed, whereas
£550 000 (R6-million) was paid in May 2000, after the contracts were
signed. By July 2001, Arstow had remitted £4.9-million [now R54-million]
to Hlongwane's entities.
The same convoluted pattern -- from Red Diamond to Hlongwane and others,
often through several offshore stages -- led to the payment of a
staggering total of £103-million (R1.13-billion) in respect of the BAE
and Saab sales in South Africa, according to an affidavit by fraud
office investigator Gary Murphy that was previously reported on by the
Mail & Guardian.
Murphy stated: "I suspect that a primary reason behind the inception of
Red Diamond was to ensure that corrupt payments could be made, and that
it would be more difficult for law enforcement agencies to penetrate the
system."
The fraud office's BAE investigation was terminated last year after a
settlement in which BAE admitted guilt on accounting-related charges in
only one of the matters investigated, the sale of radar equipment to
Tanzania.
The new cache of
documents obtained by the Mail & Guardian includes a contract
signed between the South African National Industrial Participation
company (Sanip) and arms deal agent Fana Hlongwane.
This document forced Saab, the Swedish builder of the Gripen fighter
jet, to confirm last week that at least R24-million was paid through
Sanip to Hlongwane by Saab's partner, BAE Systems, allegedly without
Saab's knowledge.
BAE ran the South African company on Saab's behalf.
Strikingly, the contract commits Hlongwane to deliver outcomes over
which he could not have had a bona fide influence -- and it promises him
a fortune in return.
Saab set up Sanip to manage the enormous offset obligations generated by
the purchase of Hawk and Gripen fighter aircraft.
Most observers believed the offset requirements -- investments of
$2-billion and export promotion of $5.2-billion by April 2011 -- were
pie in the sky and would need significant massaging of the figures to be
achieved, even on paper.
The Sanip contract, running from August 2003, agreed to pay Hlongwane's
consultancy firm a once-off fee of R8 175 000, a quarterly retainer of
R1 875 000
and two enormous success fees.
The first success fee of R22.5-million would be paid if the South
African government confirmed, in writing, that BAE had achieved its
first offset milestone -- achieving investments of $300-million and
exports of $2-billion -- by April 2004.
It appears that this was paid, though clearly there were issues around
meeting the deadlines.
An amendment in August 2006 allowed for the payment of an additional R1
275 000 bonus following "resolution … of the issue relating to the
credit review timing under NIP [the offset programme]".
Hlongwane was promised a further R30-million if the government certified
that BAE had achieved the final April 2011 milestone. It is not known
whether this amount has indeed been paid.
Hlongwane had no obvious industrial experience and, indeed, British
investigators who seized BAE documents and questioned its executives
could find scant evidence that he supplied significant input.
It is not clear how Hlongwane was regarded as being able to influence
the offset process -- other than on the basis of lobbying politicians
and officials to engage in the required accounting gymnastics to produce
the required approvals.
Documents show that Sanip also paid Hlongwane R4.2-million for a report
on black economic empowerment. The only justification BAE could produce
for this largesse was a two-page report on the choice of a strategic BEE
partner.
The Sanip contracts and payments are only a part of a complex series of
payments and agreements between Hlongwane and BAE or its agents, most of
which were "covert" and channelled through offshore companies and banks.
The M&G has previously reported that he was paid more than
R200-million in total.
Even Hlongwane’s "overt" contract with Sanip was allegedly never
disclosed to Saab, although the Swedish company was formally the 100%
owner of the offset company until it was transferred to BAE in 2004.
Investigators always suspected -- but have never had the opportunity to
prove -- that these secretive arrangements were designed to facilitate
onward payment of monies by Hlongwane to South African government
officials who could influence the decision, and to disguise delayed
rewards to Hlongwane himself for influence exercised in the 1990s when
he was special adviser to defence minister Joe Modise.
Hlongwane could not be reached for comment. -- Sam Sole & Stefaans
Brümmer
Former national
director of public prosecutions Vusi Pikoli spoke out about the arms
deal this week, saying the country needed to confront the allegations to
demonstrate a real will to fight corruption.
"Two issues … are going to define our commitment to fight corruption.
They are the arms deal and the [Iraqi] oil-for-food case," Pikoli told
the inaugural conference of the Institute of Commercial Forensic
Practitioners in Sandton on Tuesday.
South Africa's involvement in the oil-for-food scandal was exposed by
the M&G's "Oilgate" investigation. Kickbacks were allegedly paid
to Saddam Hussein’s regime to secure lucrative oil-buying rights in at
least two deals linked to key ANC figures, including the late
Sandi Majali *1.
Then-president Thabo Mbeki appointed the Donen Commission five years ago
to probe the allegations, but as recently as last year President Jacob
Zuma refused to release its report or to extend its restrictive mandate.
Pikoli said the commission was set up to meet international obligations
to fight corruption: "Then what? I don’t know what happened. Now the
arms deal issue is coming back to haunt us again … It will be here until
the matter is adequately addressed and not pushed under the carpet … We
have to deal with that."
Pikoli said he was fired because certain members of the government
hankered after the times, such as under apartheid, when the executive
could issue instructions to prosecutors.
"That’s why I got into trouble -- because I failed to obey an unlawful
instruction, unlawful and unconstitutional."
Mbeki suspended Pikoli when he refused to delay or withdraw plans to
arrest former police commissioner Jackie Selebi.
Pikoli said the now-defunct Scorpions were once public darlings. "What
went wrong? We had to tackle grand corruption that tended to affect some
politicians. That’s when things started to go wrong."
He said the fight against corruption was central to protecting democracy
and economic growth and called on forensic professionals, the private
sector and civil society to play an active part.
Corruption was not just the government’s problem, he said.
"At the end of the day, the failure of the authorities, of government,
is our failure as a people.” -- Sam Sole & Stefaans Brümmer
Today amaBhungane (the
M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism) launches the "Arms Deal Cache",
an online resource to spread knowledge about South Africa's arms deal
scandal and enlist the public in efforts by journalists and campaigners
to expose the truths that authorities have so studiously ignored.
Found at
www.mg.co.za/armsdocs or at amaBhungane's homepage at
www.amabhungane.co.za, the cache will start with the collection of
documents referred to in the accompanying articles.
It will be supplemented over time with many more documents collected
during our and the Mail & Guardian's decade-long, award-winning
investigations into the scandal. Readers are invited to submit feedback
-- and any further documents they might have in their possession -- to
amabhungane@mg.co.za.
With acknowledgements to Sam Sole, Stefaans Brummer and Mail and Guardian.
This is a whopper of a story.
And there's more to come.
From a completely different angle.
It's going to be a double whopper.
Brace yourselves, Sheilas.
*1