On 31 January 2020 the Learned UK Crown Court Judge, Dame Victoria Sharp P, delivered a damning Judgement / Verdict in a case between the Director of Serious Fraud Office of UK and Airbus SE for giving bribes to directors and employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X of Malaysia and others.

In her judgment, Dame Victoria Sharp said: “The seriousness of the criminality in this case hardly needs to be spelled out. As is acknowledged on all sides, it was grave.”  “The number of countries subject to intense criminal investigation by the various agencies, and the scale and scope of the wrongdoing disclosed in the Statement of Facts demonstrate that bribery was to the extent indicated, endemic in two core business areas within Airbus,” she added

The said judgment arose from an application asking the UK Crown Court for approval to defer prosecution agreement reached between the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus SE. In the said Judgement Airbus has to pay Euro 990,963,713 into the Consolidated Fund through SFO.  Yours truly has incorporated below the full writtenJudgment for those who would want to read it.

Backgrounds – AirAsia / Tony Fernandes Was On Shopping Spree

On 23 June 2011 the buddy of our Minister of Transport, Anthony Loke aka “Captain Anthony Loke”, Tan Sri Tony Fernandes of AirAsia proudly announced AirAsia purchased 200 A320 neo aircraft from Airbus, this was a record deal in history, HERE.  Of course,  AirAsia had been deferring deliveries of some of the ordered aircrafts.

On 19 July 2018 Tan Sri Tony Fernandes, the CEO of AirAsia Group, had again announced that AirAsia had purchased another 100 aircraft from Airbus so that AirAsia X could fly out from Malaysia to London and other European cities like Vienna and Prague, HERE.  In 2020 we are still waiting for AirAsia X to fly to London, Vienna and Prague but no sign at all.

According to the above press reports, within 3 years AirAsia had bought a total 300 aircraft from Airbus.  According to the said Grounds of Judgment AirAsia had bought 406 aircraft!

No other airlines in the world could match AirAsia when purchasing aircraft is concerned.  AirAsia X has been making losses and yet it was able to buy new aircraft. Malaysia boleh!

Count No: 1 of The Charges Against Airbus & Connected To Directors/Staffs of AirAsia & AirAsia X

Airbus had admitted to many counts of payments of bribe to directors of companies and government official. Each of the counts on the Indictment concerns similar conduct, the detail of which can be found in the Statement of Facts.  In brief, persons associated with Airbus, not exclusively its employees, offered very substantial sums of money by way of bribes to third parties in order to secure the purchase of aircraft, by civil airline companies, in counts 1 to 4; and by the Government of Ghana, in count 5.

Malaysia is of course top of the list of charges. The two directors and staffs of AirAsia and AirAsia X have made us famous overnight!  We should be proud of the said two directors AirAsia and AirAsia X, who have been identified as AirAsia executives 1 and 2!

In Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the said Judgement, the Learned Judge had stated the following:

Count 1:     Malaysia

Historical Facts On The Two Top Brass of AirAsia:  Tony Fernandes & Kamarudin Meranun

On 29 May 2018 it has been reported by Reuters that Indian police said they have filed a case against AirAsia group Bhd, the airlines C EO Tony Fernandes  and its domestic entity ion India over allegations of corruption and breaking rules in obtaining a flying licence. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accused the airline, some of its employees and third parties of violating India’s foreign direct investment rules while obtaining the license, and of bribing government officials in an attempt to get regulations relaxed to allow AirAsia India to fly international routes.

In its complaint, the CBI said the airline, Tony Fernandes and others “chose to beat the legal frameworks and policies of the aviation sector of India” and lobbied government officials “to secure mandatory approvals, some of them through non-transparent means”.  Please read HERE.

On 16 January 2020. it has been reported in  Business Today of India that AirAsia Group Bhd’s Tony Fernandes has been summoned by Enforcement Directorate (ED) In India for questioning regarding irregularities of funds and even criminal misconduct by AirAsia when it was lobbying for its operational licences in India, HERE.

It is not known whether to date Tony Fernandes the Group CEO of AirAsia had submitted himself for the said investigation.

Who were the AirAsia Executive 1 and AirAsia Executive 2 ?  Yours truly believes that all of you know who they were!  It is an open secret. If by chance you do not know, please make a guess and you will no doubt hit the bull eye.

Over To Puan Latheefa Koya  / MACC / SPRM

MACC/SPRM should be interested to examine thoroughly the Grounds of Judgment and take the necessary actions. Thereafter, SPRM / MACC can always NFA (No further Action) it after a few months like what it had done on several high profile cases. Rumour has it that the scandalous ‘Speedy Gonzales” Geeko RM100 million deal involving Dato’ Siew Ka Wei, who is the executive chairman of Ancom Bhd, and Elizabeth Ken, the Redberry Media Specialist, had been classified as “NFA” (No Further Action). Please read HERE.

$50 million Paid To the Directors Of AirAsia As “sponsorship” Of the Sport Team, Which Was Jointly Owned By the Executive 1 & 2 But Legally Unrelated To AirAsia & AirAsia X!

Count No: 1 at para 40 of the Grounds of Judgment

… The improper payment consisted of $50 million (and Airbus employees also offered but did not pay an additional $55 Million) paid to directors and/or employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X airlines as sponsorship for a sports team. The sports team was jointly owned by AirAsia Executive 1 and AirAsia Executive 2 but was legally unrelated to AirAsia and AirAsia X. The additional improper payment was prevented by the October 2014 freeze on payments to BPs described at para 29 above.

Was the “Sport Team” referred to in part of Count 1 above  was the Caterham F1 Team?  If it is.  According to Wikipedia: The Caterham F1 was a Malaysian, later British owned Formula One team based in the UK. which raced under a Malaysian licence.  The Caterham brand competed in the Formula One World Championship in. 2012 – 2014, following the acquisition of British sport car manufacturer Caterham Cars by former owner and team principal  Tony Fernandes, forming the Caterham Group, HERE.

During the happy time in Caterham

Tony Fernandes Sold Caterham To A Swiss Group

In October 2014 Tony Fernandes announced then the sale of Caterham. Please see the Guardian report entitled “F1 team Caterham threaten former owner Tony Fernandes with legal action“.  According to the UK Guardian Newspapers report, Tony Fernandes spent £250 million on the organisation and then sold it. Please also read Paul Tan’s posting, HERE.

Lets wait for the Airbus scandal to unfold a little bit more then we will get a clearer picture on the scandal.  For now we hope that the AirAsia Executive 1 or 2 will come out to clarify what had been stated in the said Grounds of Judgment.

Over to Security Commission & Bursas KL (KLSE)

The $50 million (equivalent RM204 million) bribe paid by Airbus to the AirAsia Executives 1 and 2 should be treated as income for airAsia and AirAsia X.  However, according to paragraph  39 of the said Grounds of Judgment the RM205 million was paid under the scheme of “sponsorship” to  a sport team which was unrelated to AirAsia or AirAsia X. In short the RM205 million was paid to the personal company of AirAsia executives 1 and 2.

No doubt this RM204 million that was received from Airbus was not reported in the respective Annual Accounts of AirAsia Bhd and AirAsia X Bhd. If the RM204 million was reported it would have changed the respective Annual Accounts of AirAsia X drastically.

In the best interest of the investing public, the Security Commission (Suruhanjaya Sekuriti) and Bursa KL are duty bound to launch an immediate investigation into the receipt of the said bribe of RM204 million by AirAsia executives 1 and 2.

The Full Grounds of Judgment / Verdict Of UK Crown Court 

If you don’t want to read the whole judgment, please proceed to paragraphs 39 – 40 at page 10 – 11 for the payments made to the directors and employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X.

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment page 2

_______________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment page 3

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 4

Grounds of Judgment – page 5

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 6

______________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 7

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 8

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 9

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 10

Grounds of Judgment – page 11

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 12

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 13

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 14

______________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 15

_________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 16

________________________________________________________________________________

Ground of Judgment – page 17

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 18

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 19

________________________________________________________________________________

Ground of Judgment – page 20

_________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 21

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 22

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 23

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 25

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 26

__________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 27

_________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 28

________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 29

_________________________________________________________________________________

Grounds of Judgment – page 30

End