SINGAPORE — The unwillingness of a foreign witness to give evidence in Singapore and another individual’s denial of wrongdoing were among the hurdles faced by the prosecution in mounting a case against six senior management staff members of Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M).

Responding to questions by Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the aisle on Monday (Feb 6), Ms Indranee Rajah, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, said that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) issued stern warnings to the unnamed individuals instead of proceeding to charge them.

Ms Indranee also said that from 2017 to 2021, an average of 138 warnings were issued and 139 individuals were prosecuted each year.

“Stern warnings are not unusual, being used in cases where there are evidential difficulties or little public interest to prosecute.” 

As a matter of policy, CPIB does not disclose names of individuals unless they are charged in court, to avoid prejudicing that individual’s right to due process and also avoid any presumption of guilt, she added.

She welcomed any MP who felt that this practice should be changed to step forward, noting that it would be a major change in policy.

“But please note, if members want a change, then it cannot be only for this case, it must be for all future cases.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Keppel O&M — part of Keppel Corporation, one of the largest conglomerates here — had allegedly conspired with others between 2001 and 2014 to pay large bribes to officials of Brazilian state-owned oil company Petrobras to influence the securing of 13 projects in Brazil.

The illegal payments were purportedly concealed through consulting agreements with shell companies, with Keppel O&M and its related companies earning profits of more than US$350 million (S$460 million) from business corruptly obtained in Brazil.

These facts were admitted by Keppel O&M in an agreed statement of facts it signed with the United States Department of Justice in 2017, as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

As part of a global resolution involving the US Department of Justice and the authorities in Brazil and Singapore, Keppel O&M paid US$422 million in fines.

CPIB in January issued stern warnings to the six former senior management staff members of Keppel O&M.

Keppel O&M also received a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution.

The affair has in the past been dubbed a "black eye to Singapore Inc" given the country's clean reputation on corruption.

WERE KEPPEL’S BOARD MEMBERS AWARE AT MATERIAL TIME?

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh asked whether investigations had found that Keppel’s board of directors at the material time had “constructive knowledge” of corrupt payments made to secure contracts in Brazil.

The Workers’ Party (WP) chief also asked about the total number of mutual legal assistance requests sent to other jurisdictions and their outcome.

In her responses:

• Ms Indranee said that constructive knowledge of an offence does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
• As such, “there's no reason for CPIB to be investigating this” since it only investigates offences under the Act 
• Ms Indranee reiterated her earlier replies that three mutual legal assistance requests were sent to Brazil to secure evidence and one more to another foreign authority

“They haven't yielded the evidence that could be used to secure conviction, or the responses haven't been helpful,” she said

“Whatever CPIB has been able to do or to uncover to us in its investigations in Singapore with respect to Keppel, it has done.”

She stressed that the problem lies in the unavailability of key material witnesses.

“That is the hurdle that they have not been able to overcome,” she added.

DEALING WITH BRIBERY OVERSEAS

Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP Gerald Giam asked if there had been occasions where the Government was aware of Singaporeans paying bribes to foreign officials but decided not to take them to task on the basis that bribery is sometimes seen as necessary to win contracts in countries where corruption in rife.

In her response, Ms Indranee repeated the Government’s strict stance against corruption.

• She said that the authorities will investigate if it comes to their attention that an act of bribery or an offence has been committed
• The authorities will also pursue such cases in court if there is enough evidence to do so
• “If the suggestion is that we're somehow condoning bribery overseas, the answer is no,” she said
• She noted that Singapore companies overseas operate in a myriad of environments with different business practices
• “However, what we can do is insulate our companies and our system against corruption,” she said 
• “Our companies must find a way to do business cleanly wherever they do business. And people must know that's how we operate,” she added

STERN WARNING A ‘SOMETHING IN BETWEEN’

Mr Leon Perera, an Aljunied GRC MP, asked what was the basis of issuing stern warnings to six of Keppel’s executives, given “the insufficiency of evidence to mount charges”.

In her reply, Ms Indranee said that such warnings are issued when “you can't say that you give a complete, clean bill of health but at the same time, you don't have enough to clear the evidentiary hurdle”.

• She said that three options are available in such circumstances: Do nothing at all, bring charges while not having enough evidence, or a “something in between”
• Giving a stern warning is a signal or a marker by the AGC to say that it knows something is “not entirely right” but it does not have enough to mount a charge
• If the AGC had “thrown up its hands” and closed investigations, “that, too, would not have been the correct thing to do,” she added