Updates on 7-2-2020 @ 5:30 pm: PMO has clarified that the press reports of what YAB Dr Mahathir Mohamed had said about the Airbus had bribed the AirAsia executive 1 and 2 are inaccurate. What the PM had said was: “If payment goes to the individuals then it is a bribe”. If the benefits goes to the individual it is also bribe. Please read HERE.
Updates on 6-2-2020 @11:30 pm: Sri Lanka arrest its former airline chief executive Chandrasena and his wife over the Airbus bribery scandal exposed in the Judgment of the UK Crown Court on 31-1-2020. In the same Judgement the evidence is crystal clear that Airbus had paid bribe of RM204 million to two AirAsia executives 1 & 2, HERE.
The Statement of Facts and Approved Judgment in the case of Serious Fraud Office UK vs Rolls Royce Energy System Inc (RR) dated 17 January 2017 provides a clear insight into the modus operandi of the top executives and/or senior officers in AirAsia Group and AirAsia X internationally. It was all about personal enrichment at the expense of the rakyat (investing public).
With their track records in this RR case and the recent Airbus bribery scandal, one will not be very wrong to suspect they had been and still are operating with the same or similar modus operandi in Malaysia or other countries. Can our past and present Ministers and/or top officials in the enforcement agencies like Security Commission, Bursa Kuala Lumpur and others speak up on these “uncovered” corrupt practices? Of course, their motto is “silence is golden” at this difficult time for their “friends”. These top executives of AirAsia Group and AAX referred to in the said two cases of RR and Airbus have brought Malaysia into disrepute internationally.
Let see what actions the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Sport & Youth (on the chairman of Stadium Board) under “Malaysia Baru” are going to take or for how long both are going to play dumb in the light of the findings of bribery or corrupt practices in connection with the top executives of AirAsia Group and AirAsia X.
The 2017 RR Case in UK
The RR case was about the top executive or senior of AirAsia Group who in 2011 wanted to buy a PRIVATE JET and was devising a scheme for the maintenance cost of the said private jet to be paid through the account of AirAsia X with RR. The private jet was finally bought in late 2011. There were more than sufficient evidence found in the said RR case on how blatant was the modus operandi of the said executive and/or senior officers of AirAsia Group and AirAsia X in securing the free maintenance for the AirAsia Group executive’s personal jet at the expense of the shareholders of AirAsia X!
The Judgement ? Statement Of Facts On The RR Scandal
They AirAsia Group executive and AirAsia X senior executive were specifically referred to in the Judgement of the Learned Honourable Justice Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the UK Queen’s Bench Division (court) in UK. The Statement of Facts comprised of 52 pages. This bribery or corrupt practice case was investigated by SFO and Department of Justice USA (DOJ).
The said Rolls Royce’s bribery / corrupt practice case also happened in Indonesia (Garuda), Thailand (Thai Airways), India (Defence), Russia, Indonesia (Energy), Nigeria (Energy), Indonesia (Civil), China and of course, Malaysia (AirAsia & AirAsia X) can not be left out.
In the said Statement of Facts of the UK Crown Court, there were three important personalities from AirAsia Group and AirAsia X, They were referred to as:
“AirAsia Group (AAG) executive”
“AAX senior employee”
Count 12 Of The Statement Of Facts (AirAsia & AirAsia X)
Summary of Count 12:
RR Failure to Prevent Bribery between 1 July 2011 and 30 November 2013.
RR failed to prevent its employees from providing an Air Asia Group (“AAG”) executive (“the AAG executive”) with credits worth US $3.2 million to be used to pay for the maintenance of a private jet despite those employees believing that, in consequence, the AAG executive intended to perform a relevant function improperly. This financial advantage was given at the request of the AAG executive, in return for his showing favour towards RR in the purchase of products and services provided by RR and its subsidiaries, including TCA services to be supplied to Air Asia X (“AAX”), a subsidiary of AAG.” (see page 48 – 49 para 314 below – the Statement of Facts)
In a nutshell, in August 2011 “AirAsia X senior employee“ had approached RR for information about RR’s engine maintenance programe in respect of a private jet which AAG executive was planning to purchase.
In November 2011 RR senior employee met AAG executive. RR senior employee reported to RR other employees that AAG executive was offended because of the Corporate Care rate had offered on the new Global (private jet) that the AAG executive had just bought. (see para 316 below).
This AAG executive was loaded with cash to be able to buy a private jet.
There was an internal email sated:
On the corporate jet, not good news it’s a syndicate of private Malaysian investors. So working a trick between deals is a non starter. I’ll check with legal though.” (see para 318 below)
RR compliance provided the following advice:
“As discussed, the expectations of the [AAG executive] need to be tempered.
RR cannot give preferential rates on Corporate Care for the [AAG executive’s] personal aircraft just because of the business done with RR by the Airline of which he is [an executive]. The two should not be linked as there are both legal and ethical implications to doing so.
Let me know if you require the extracts from both the FCPA and UKBA that underpin this.” (see para 319 below)
Please see para 326 – 330 below where many discussions on how to flout the law on compliance and other laws by creative accounting and concealment of the Total Care Agreement (TCA).
When RR employee pursued prompt payment of debts by AAX which upset AAX senior employee who later requested the removal of this RR employee. (see para 333 below). Of course, this RR employee was later removed!
On 15 March 2013 this RR employee emailed one of his senior employee that “AAX senior employee wants a cash settlement that is off record and not visible to the AAX group“. (see para 334 below)
He later explained to his RR senior employee that what the AAX senior employee was seeking was an “unlawful cash payment for [AAG executive]’s private jet.” (see para 335 below)
Were The Shareholders Of AirAsia X Bhd Been Defrauded?
Below are the relevant pages for paragraphs 312 to 349 of the Statement of Facts for all to read and judge whether this was a case of AirAisa Group executive and/or AirAsia X senior employee had defrauded the shareholders of AirAsia X Bhd.
It is most surprising that in 2017 this serious case between SFO vs Rolls Royce was not highlighted by the local media. It is equally shocking that our Security Commission (SC) was oblivious about the Approved Judgment and evidence as stated in the Statement of Facts below.
Security Commission / Bursa KL To Investigate
Perhaps this might be an opportune moment to ask Security Commission ( SC) and Bursa Kuala Lumpur why they were not aware about this matter and if they were aware then why no actions taken against the culprits in AirAsia Group and AirAsia X as shown in the said Statement of Facts.
Or did the then SC chairman / top officials classified this serious matter under NFA (no Further Action) in 2017?
Was this a case of “HARAPKAN PAGAR, PAGAR MAKAN PAD”?
No wonder Kamarudin Meranun of AirAsia was let off very lightly with a settlement of only RM3.64 million for insider trading during the MAS – AirAsia Share SUAP, HERE. SC is a laughing stock.
MACC Should Investigate Into The Then Decision Makers In SC and Bursa KL
MACC should also investigate into why there was no actions taken or the case was classified under NFA by then SC chairman or top officials and/or Bursa Kuala Lumpur on such a serious violations of our security law i.e. defrauding the shareholders of a public listed company.
SC / Bursa KL and MACC To Investigate On The Status Of The Private Jet
All the three enforcement agencies namely SC, Bursa Kuala Lumpur and MACC should also investigate what is the status of this private jet that was owned buy the AirAsia Group executive, AirAsia Group 2nd executive and another individual (the evidence in the RR case) and whether this private jet was later sold to company related to AirAsia Group.
Statement of Facts
Statement of Facts – page 48
Statement of Facts – page 49
Statement of Facts – page 50
Statement of Facts – page 51
You can read the full Judgment by Sir Brian Laveson – Regina v Rolls Royce, Statement of Facts and Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which have been published in the website of Serious Fraud Office UK, HERE.