'Slap on the wrist': Mixed views from lawyers on CPIB stern warnings to 6 ex-senior staff of Keppel unit over S$73m bribery case

SINGAPORE — The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) issued stern warnings on Wednesday (Jan 11) to six ex-senior management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM), for their alleged bribery of officials of Brazilian state-owned oil giant Petrobras that emerged in 2017.

The case involved explosive revelations relating to those caught up in the bribery scandal including KOM, Singapore's biggest oil rig builder and a major player in the global energy and marine sector. KOM is part of Keppel Corporation, one of the largest conglomerates here.

KOM paid out an eye-watering US$422 million (S$561 million) in fines as part of an international settlement of the case, led by the United States.

KOM 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.

In a statement on Thursday, CPIB said that it had completed its consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, based on investigations into the six individuals who had allegedly conspired with each other to give bribe payments totalling about US$55 million to foreign consultants involved in KOM’s business interests in Brazil.

The bribes, paid between 2001 and 2014, were intended to help secure contracts with the Brazilian firm.

The bureau noted a number of factors in outlining its decision to issue stern warnings, including the difficulties involved in getting evidence in a complex case involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries.

"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," it said.

The culpability of the six individuals, who have not been named, the available evidence and "what is appropriate in the circumstances" were also taken into consideration, the CPIB added.

Lawyers interviewed by TODAY over the decision to issue the six with stern warnings were mixed in their reactions. Some said it was a surprise given the nature and history of the case and one called it a a mere "slap on the wrist".

Others felt it was unsurprising and they generally felt the case would not prove to be a precedent as it was a "standalone" case with an unusual combination of elements.

STERN WARNING 'A SURPRISE' GIVEN SUMS INVOLVED, SAYS ONE LAWYER

Senior lawyer Edmond Pereira from Edmond Pereira Law Corporation said he was surprised that only stern warnings were issued against the six individuals, given the fine paid by KOM is "perhaps one of the most significant amounts seen in recent times". 

Mr Pereira said that although the intimate details of the matter are not known, it is "surprising that the complexity of a matter can be a valid ground for a decision not to prosecute in what appears to be a case involving the worst of its kind".

However, other lawyers said that the KOM case is a "standalone" one, and that charges could not be brought to the alleged offenders because there was likely a lack of evidence. 

Lawyer Amolat Singh from Amolat and Partners said that because of the multinational nature of the alleged crime, the case could involve witnesses and documentary evidence from different countries. 

"Because of the international angle, it may not be possible for Singapore Government to get to other countries' documents and witnesses," said Mr Singh.

"If it's in Singapore, the CPIB has powers to call up the person and record things, but they can’t do that to people in foreign countries." 

Mr Singh added that the AGC would not want to mount a half-hearted prosecution, as the case could "fizzle out" without the necessary evidence. 

Thus, a stern warning appears to be the only option at the authorities' disposal. 

Agreeing, Associate Professor Ferlin Jayatissa, a practising lawyer who also teaches at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), said that the decision to give stern warnings is not surprising. 

This is because CPIB had issued a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution to the offender corporate entity (KOM) for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act “based on a global resolution involving the US Department of Justice, Singapore and Brazil”. 

“The stern warnings to the six officers of KOM who were involved in the actual bribery are fair and appropriate decisions, consequent to this global resolution,” said Assoc Prof Jayatissa, a former deputy public prosecutor with AGC. 

As to why the US$422 million fine paid by KOM cannot be considered as part of the punishment meted out to the six ex-employees, law lecturer Alexander Woon said this is because KOM is a separate legal entity.

“Criminal action taken against a corporate entity is distinct from criminal action taken against individuals,” said Mr Woon, who is also a former prosecutor now teaching at SUSS. 

SIX NOT NAMED PUBLICLY AS NO CHARGES LAID

The lawyers said that the six former KOM staff were not named because they had not been charged in the first place. 

CPIB said that the stern warnings were issued to the six "in lieu of prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act". 

Lawyer Rajan Supramaniam from Regent Law LLC said that "in lieu of prosecution" means that the stern warning was issued to the six instead of them being charged.

"Others who have not been found guilty yet, but they might have their names publicised because they have been prosecuted in court," he said.

Thus, without charges against the six, the AGC has no obligation to release their names. 

However, Mr Pereira said that he was surprised at the AGC's decision not to release the names of the six, as the High Court had decided last year to release the names of individuals who had cheated in their bar exams, even though there were no criminal charges brought against them. 

"It is very surprising that the persons (allegedly) operating the mechanism behind a corrupt scheme of the present magnitude, can have their identities protected," he added. 

In response to queries from TODAY, a CPIB spokesman said that the bureau "does not disclose names of individuals who are issued warnings".

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF A STERN WARNING? 

A stern warning is not a criminal conviction and so will not be part of the six former employees' criminal records, said lawyers.

"Generally, stern warnings come with no conviction record, which means that they don’t have to make a declaration that they have been investigated, as there is no court conviction," said Mr Rajan. 

However, Mr Singh said that while it is not a conviction, the warning will be recorded in CPIB's internal records. 

"The fact that a stern warning was given to this person will be one of the factors taken into consideration in any subsequent case," he said. 

CASE UNLIKELY TO SERVE AS PRECEDENT

Lawyers said that while notwithstanding the fact that the six persons were not charged and the bribery involved a large sum of money, the case does not serve as a precedent.  

"This is a standalone case because there are (other) people who have taken bribes or given bribes but have been charged in Singapore," said Mr Singh. 

For instance, a former senior director at data storage company Seagate and his sister were sentenced to jail in 2021 for conspiring to receive 11.3 million yuan (S$2.2 million) in bribes for tenders awarded by Seagate to two China trucking firms.

"If it is not a very complex case involving many countries or involving many parties who are all overseas, it doesn't stop CPIB from charging people," he said. 

Agreeing, Mr Rajan said: "(This case) shouldn't affect other cases, or that the public perception should be that people can get away... each case is based on its unique facts, circumstances, evidence and culpability."