No ethical principles in uk business anymore !!!

Glencore corruption ‘condoned at very senior level’, court told

Ted Hennessey
2 November 2022, 3:29 pm
Corruption within mining giant Glencore, which pleaded guilty to making bribes, was “condoned at a very senior level”, a court has heard.

Glencore Energy UK Limited, part of the huge commodities trader, admitted five counts of bribery and two of failure to prevent bribery earlier this year.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said the charges came after it launched an investigation in 2019 which found that Glencore had, via its employees and agents, paid bribes of more than 28 million US dollars (£23 million) for preferential access to oil, including increased cargoes, valuable grades of oil and preferable dates of delivery.

On the first day of sentencing on Wednesday, Southwark Crown Court heard the cost of harm caused by the misconduct between March 2012 to April 2016 is more than £81 million.

The total financial benefit Glencore made from the payment of bribes came at an agreed value of £93.5m, the court heard.

Alexandra Healy KC, prosecuting, said: “Glencore has pleaded guilty to paying bribes, through its agents and employees, to officials in several jurisdictions for commercial advantages, namely securing crude oil cargoes at specific grades and on preferred dates.

“In Nigeria, Cameroon and Ivory Coast, Glencore paid USD 26,901,820 through intermediaries, agents and employees intending a portion to be paid as bribes to those concerned in allocating crude oil, primarily officials in state-owned oil companies.

“In Equatorial Guinea and South Sudan, Glencore made payments of USD 1,000,000 and USD 1,075,000 respectively to its agents and failed to prevent them from using a portion of those funds to pay bribes to officials in order to secure valuable oil contracts.”
The court heard about Glencore’s anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) policies and procedures, relevant to its appointment and payment of intermediaries.

Ms Healy wrote in her summary: “However, these were largely ignored because corruption was condoned at a very senior level within the company generally.”

She went on: “There was a stark contrast between the true culture of the company and that set out in the policies.”

The court heard Glencore paid nearly £3 million in bribes in the form of “service fees” through its agent, referred to as NG Ltd, to Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, the nation’s state oil corporation, between March 2012 and April 2014.

Ms Healy said this would reward NNPC for making decisions such as who could purchase crude oil, who would receive it, when this would occur and the grades of oil allocated.

Ms Healy told the court: “These addenda, purportedly for ‘service fees’ were a sham. They were used to disguise the true purpose of the payments which was to enable NG Ltd to bribe NNPC officials in order to gain preferential treatment for Glencore.”


The SFO has charged Glencore with 7 counts of bribery, following an investigation – codenamed Operation Azoth – which exposed bribery and corruption in the company’s oil operations in West Africa.

Glencore has indicated it will plead guilty to all charges.

— Serious Fraud Office (SFO) (@UKSFO) May 24, 2022

In another instance, the firm paid millions in bribes through its employee, an oil trader referred to as GE1, to Cameroon’s national oil and gas company.

GE1 paid bribes to officials in companies to ensure Glencore was successful in selling crude oil at prices that were “advantageous”, the court heard.

It was told Glencore made nearly £28 million from its bribes via an agent in Ivory Coast between July 2011 and April 2016.

The court was also told the firm failed to prevent bribery in Equatorial Guinea at the end of 2011.

Glencore made a USD 1,000,000 payment to its agent in the country disguised as a loan in the internal accounting system.

Ms Healy said: “A portion of that sum was used to bribe officials in GEPetrol to secure crude oil cargoes for Glencore.

“Glencore failed to prevent the payment of bribes by its agent.”

During a similar time period, bribes were paid to officials to secure crude oil cargoes for a joint venture company involving Glencore and South Sudan’s state oil company.

Ms Healy said: “Glencore executives travelled to the country shortly after its independence with USD 800,000 in cash.

“Soon afterwards the joint venture company by secured two million barrels of crude oil.

“A second cash withdrawal was made of USD 275,000 and shortly thereafter the joint venture company was awarded 600,000 barrels of crude oil.

“The recorded reasons for these large cash withdrawals were false.”

Ms Healy went on to say the each of the seven counts showed “high culpability, some demonstrating the “corruption of local or national government officials”.

She added: “Corruption was endemic with the corporation. Attempts were made to conceal the misconduct.”

Clare Montgomery KC, representing Glencore while the firm’s chairman Kalidas Madhavpeddi was in court, condemned the “inexplicable conduct”.

She said: “The company unreservedly regrets the harm caused by the offences.”

Ms Montgomery argued although the misconduct was embedded in the firm’s West Africa trading desk, it was not widespread across the company.

The SFO said it carried out a “large, highly complex” case reviewing more than one million documents and conducted interviews under caution.

It is the first corporate conviction under section one of the Bribery Act 2010, the SFO said.

Proof the offences were committed with the authorisation of those senior executives who have the “directing mind and will” of the company was required.

Glencore will be sentenced on Thursday morning.

 

Am no business expert by any means but I wouldn't consider the worldwide nature of Glencore's trading activities to be representative of companies who's business activities are carried out solely or mostly in the UK.Seems to me the companies association with the UK is more connected to taxation than it's trading activities.To conclude that there are no longer ethical principles in UK business I feel is a little misleading.

 

I'm obviously far older than you, since I remember Tiny Rowlands and his company Rio Tinto Zinc, of which John Major once referred to as "the unacceptable face of capitalism". Been like that ever since hasn't it !!!

 

yes your far far older than me .....and what has that got to do with the Glencore issue?

 

Actually I believe it was Ted Heath who accused Tiny Rowlands and his company Lonrho as presenting "the unacceptable face of capitalism" for evading UK tax by paying its directors from the tax haven of the Cayman Island.Vladimir Illich is good at firing from the hip without first checking the facts as he was wrong with 2 out of 3 key points of his rant.

 

Rio Tinto was/is one of the largest metals and mining corporations in the world.Altho it has a history of scandals it has absolutely nothing to do with Tiny Rowlands,John Major or UK business activity.Makes me wonder how Illich has dominated this UK forum for the last 2 and a half years with his foul mouthed socialist rants and wild accusations.Scary.

 

Tiny Rowlands Was Chairman or CEO of RTZ back in the 60s, but you're obviously not old enough to know that, and it would seem that Glencore is treading the well worn path of bribery and corruption that RTZ trod many decades ago, all with a wink and a nod from the scumbag 'nasty sleaze party'

 

no Iwasn't around in the 60's that's correct.But I am old enough to read and learn. Your clutching at straws again..John Major had nothing to do with anything and it wasn't Rio Tinto Zinc who was referred to as you stated.Your such a self opinionated bigot who could never admit they are wrong your laughable .

 

My apologies, you are correct, it wasn't RTZ but Lonhro which 'Tiny' Rowland was CEO of, although the criticism of both past and present scumbag 'nasty sleaze party' is still valid !!!

meaning and origin of the British phrase ‘the acceptable face of ——’
Pascal Trégueretymology, public affairs, United Kingdom & Irelandeconomics, human body, newspapers & magazines, phrasesLeave a comment

The British-English phrase the acceptable face of —— denotes the more tolerable aspect of (something usually perceived as unpopular or objectionable).

It originated in the unacceptable face of capitalism, used by the Conservative statesman Edward Heath (1916-2005), Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974, during a debate at the House of Commons on Tuesday 15th May 1973.

This debate took place after it was revealed that Lonrho, an international mining and industrial company, was making large pay-offs and exploiting tax loopholes. Opposition MPs accused Edward Heath of using double standards by:
– refusing to intervene in the scandals of big business caused by the dubious morality in boardrooms,
– while constantly intervening and moralising about the legitimate wage claims of trade unions.

The following is a passage from this parliamentary debate—Joseph Grimond (1913-93), MP for Orkney and Shetland, was a member of the Liberal Party:

Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister talks to the CBI [= Confederation of British Industry], will he ask it to condemn unequivocally the sort of goings on that we have all read about at Lonrho […]? Will he also point out to the CBI that greed does not now seem to be a monopoly of the trade unions?
The Prime Minister: It would not be necessary for me to ask the CBI to make a statement of that kind, and as a responsible body it should be prepared to make its own statement. […] It is the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, but one should not suggest that the whole of British industry consists of practices of this kind.

 

yeah right .Whatever.'

 

[QUOTE="Bendix3333, post: 9360085, member: 315279"]yeah right .Whatever.'[/QUOTE]


Nice of you to finally acknowledge that I am correct !!!