Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

There is a lack of sufficient evidence, either documentary or through witnesses, for establishing a criminal charge "beyond a reasonable doubt" against any specific individual alleged to be involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) corruption scandal, according to Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Indranee Rajah.

On Feb. 6, Indranee said in Parliament that the public prosecutor, in deciding whether to charge the relevant individuals, has to consider whether he has the necessary evidence to prove that those individuals were involved in certain conduct and possess a certain mental state to establish the offences.

She was responding to questions posed by Members of Parliament (MPs) from the People's Action Party (PAP), Workers' Party (WP) and Progress Singapore Party (PSP) about issuing stern warnings to the six people allegedly involved in the scandal, the process behind the decision to do so, and the significance of the decision.

KOM corruption scandal background

Six ex-KOM senior management staff were found to be involved in paying bribes amounting to US$55 million (S$73 million) to officials of Brazilian state-owned oil giant Petrobras between 2001 and 2014.

The payments, which were made to help KOM secure thirteen projects in Brazil, were concealed using consulting agreements with shell companies that were controlled by an intermediary, or consultant, who will then transfer the monies to the intended parties.

KOM admitted to this modus operandi, and provided details of the bribery, as part of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in 2017.

It was issued a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution and paid a total fine of US$422 million (S$560 million) as part of a global resolution.

CPIB: Key witnesses are located outside of Singapore

Indranee, who is also Second Minister for Finance, further cited the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's (CPIB) statement on the matter, which said:

"This 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."

Indranee added that with the initial assistance of the Brazilian authorities, CPIB also made two fact-finding trips to Brazil in May and August 2019.

Requests did not yield helpful material

Both the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and CPIB had sent three mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests to Brazil to secure evidence.

AGC and CPIB also sent an MLA request to another relevant foreign authority to interview other potential material witnesses.

"The contents and outcome of these MLA requests are confidential, but I can inform the House that they have either not yielded evidence that could be used to secure a conviction before our Courts, or the responses have not been helpful in advancing the case."

Potential useful foreign witness not willing to give evidence in Singapore

Indranee further noted that there is one foreign witness who gave evidence in other proceedings, which could have been relevant in establishing the offences in Singapore.

However, that foreign witness is not willing to voluntarily give evidence in Singapore, she said.

"Neither AGC nor CPIB can compel him to do so," she added.

Deferred prosecution agreement is insufficient in commencing a prosecution

She also pointed out that the DPA Keppel Offshore and Marine had entered into is insufficient in commencing a prosecution against the individuals in question.

According to Indranee, the DPA and related documents were entered into between KOM, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

She noted that KOM USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of KOM, had entered into a plea bargain agreement with the U.S. authorities, and no individuals were parties to these documents.

While the documents make references to the actions of certain individuals, Indranee said she has been "advised" that those references on their own are not sufficient to establish any offences beyond reasonable doubt.

There are no witnesses to testify in Singapore about the context surrounding those actions, and their intention behind them.

"In short, the agencies do not have sufficient evidence that would show beyond reasonable doubt, that any of the six individuals were guilty of an offence," Indranee said.

What of the individual who entered into a plea bargain?

Indranee also noted that some MPs had asked whether any prosecution could be advanced from the fact that a particular individual had entered into a plea bargain in another jurisdiction, in relation to his involvement in the KOM bribery.

"When this individual was investigated by CPIB on his return to Singapore, he denied knowing that commissions paid to the agent in Brazil were paid out as bribes," she said.

During the course of CPIB's investigation, he did not implicate himself or any others in conspiring to pay bribes.

Indranee elaborated:

"Even if the PP (Public Prosecutor) applies to a Singapore Court to admit the plea agreement, the agreement did not identify any specific individuals and was made in the context of a plea bargain, and will be given limited weight without further supporting evidence, and in the face of potentially conflicting oral testimony."

On the decision to issue stern warnings, Indranee said, "If subsequently new and compelling facts come to light, it remains open for the PP to reevaluate the decision in the light of the evolving legal and factual matrix."

Top screenshot via CNA

&t=1s&ab_channel=Mothership