Stern warnings to Keppel O&M ex-staff signal they are not completely off the hook: Parliament

THE stern warnings issued by Singapore authorities to six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine (Keppel O&M) for bribery offences related to Brazil’s Petrobras contracts signal that they are not completely off the hook, even if there is a lack of evidence for prosecution, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Indranee Rajah in Parliament on Monday (Feb 6).

“It signals an expression of the AGC’s (Attorney-General’s Chambers) position that they don’t have enough to charge you (ex-Keppel O&M staff) but we are putting down a marker that there is something not entirely right,” said Indranee.

She said this in response to a supplementary question by Workers’ Party Member of Parliament (MP) Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) on what was the basis for the stern warning issued by Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in consultation with the AGC given that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the six individuals.

“A stern warning is given when... you can’t say that you can give a complete bill of health but at the same time you don’t have enough to clear the evidentiary hurdle. (So), the choices are to do nothing at all or bring charges... or is there something in between.

“The stern warning device is the something-in-between... available to the AGC. It would be a very different thing for example if the AGC had just thrown up its hands and said ‘Okay, close investigations... don’t do anything’. That would not have been the correct thing to do,” she elaborated.

Indranee fielded 17 questions filed by MPs for Monday’s Parliament session as well as took on supplementary questions in relation to CPIB’s decision to issue a stern warning to the six individuals. This followed the CPIB’s statement issued on Jan 12 that it has completed its investigations into the six individuals who had allegedly conspired with one another to pay bribes of some US$55 million to foreign consultants. These consultants then used these monies to pay bribes to officials of Brazilian state-owned Petrobras in relation to rig-building contracts.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

The CPIB’s decision not to prosecute these individuals raised some questions in public over Singapore’s zero tolerance stance on corruption. Indranee had said last week that these assertions were being made based on an inadequate understanding of the facts, and she would shed more light on the matter in Parliament.

On Monday, Indranee, who is also Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for National Development, explained that while the CPIB had conducted a “thorough investigation” with the information and powers it possessed, the agency could not overcome the “evidential difficulties” to meet the burden of proof given the cross border nature of this case and the absence of key witnesses to mount a prosecution in Singapore’s court.

However, she added that if subsequently, “new and compelling facts come to light” on the case, “it remains open for the PP (public prosecutor) to re-evaluate the decision in the light of the evolving legal and factual matrix”.

CPIB in issuing its statement, said the case is complex and transnational, involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries. There are evidentiary difficulties in cases of such nature. Many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions. In addition, key witnesses are located outside of Singapore and cannot be compelled to give evidence here.

“Simply put, there is a lack of sufficient evidence – either documentary or through witnesses – which would establish any criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt against a specific individual,” Indranee explained.

She said Singapore authorities had made a number of mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests over the five years on this case. This involved three MLA requests to the authorities in Brazil and one to “another relevant foreign authority”, none of which has yielded evidence that could be used to prosecute.

There is one foreign witness who gave evidence in other proceedings which could have been relevant, but the witness was not willing to voluntarily give evidence in Singapore and both the AGC and CPIB could not compel him to do so. Another individual who had entered into a plea deal in another jurisdiction in relation to his involvement in the Keppel O&M bribery case had, when he was investigated by the CPIB on his return to Singapore, denied knowledge that the commissions paid to the agent in Brazil were paid as bribes.

On a question on why the six individuals were not named, Indranee explained that it is the CPIB’s policy not to disclose names unless they are charged in court. This was not unique to Singapore’s law enforcement agencies, as the underlying principle is to avoid prejudicing the individual’s right to due process, and also avoid the presumption of guilt in the absence of formal findings. None of the individuals have made any admissions to the bribe-related offences.

Addressing assertions that the Singapore authorities should have provided more explanation for the decision not to prosecute the individuals, Indranee said the AGC has to be “quite careful” in discharging its responsibility and making public statements with respect to its decisions because “further down along the line, further action may have to be taken”.

“So... in this case, they have put out as much as they thought would be appropriate. But you really don’t want a system where every single case, the investigations are discussed in detail, and where it then becomes an exercise of the public determining guilt or innocence in the absence of proper due process.”

She added: “There is no change in Singapore’s zero tolerance policy on corruption. I have explained the reasons why no criminal proceedings have been brought in this matter. In having regard to the rules of evidence, CPIB and AGC are observing the basic rules for a fair and just criminal justice system. What can be inferred from this is that while Singapore has zero tolerance on corruption, it also strongly adheres to the rule of law.”