text: Petrofac Limited Share Chat - Chat About PFC Shares - PFC | Page 581
  28/03/2020 21:35:55 Cookie Policy +44 (0) 203 8794 460 Free Membership Login
  Showing 14501 to 14524 of 14725 messages
  15:10 I would like to see them merge post SFO. Work is thinning.
  14:54 i think people spend too much time focused on the possible bribery case worst case is a one off fine need to forget about that and look at the underlying long term prospects for the business the plus point here is, it allows the greedy to buy from the fearful at silly prices
  14:33 notimpressed are you aware that PFC have been accused of bribery?
  14:23 what has any of the foregoing claptrap got to do with PFC ??????
  13:58 new people come on here and say things like this I am a UK lawyer and I work in the oil and gas business in the middle for a long time and I can safely say that 95% of the people on this tread have no idea what they are taking about now that may well be true lol, but do they seriously expect to be welcomed with open arms
  13:16 I was the in-house lawyer handling the various cases he brought - he was and is a serious litigator - there is no SFO link in his particular case - we were primarily dealing with the DOJ but the principles are the same - a plea bargain is possible ( although they don't call it in the UK and will never admit it) - good luck with you investment decisions - I have a big position myself . Like I said I am signing off here - thought it was for serious investors helping each other out but it doesn't reflect the best of mankind - all the best
  12:39 honeymonster do you have a link to the Grynsberg case I can only find links that relate to court action in Switzerland and NY and its between Grysberg and BP so not seeing the connection with SFO, was there a trial in the UK after by SFO? From what I see BP got off with paying bribes to Kazak officials to avoid paying Grysberg his percentage royalties for finding an oil field and then developing the oilfield themselves.
  12:23 This ain't Tinder honey.
  12:12 Please let me know if you would like to contact me off line - not used this before and I can see that it's not suitable for people like me
  12:05 Pogue - I would think it highly unlikely. It depends on the nature of their internal compliance programme - UK AB Act has been around since 2010 and FCPA and POCA before that so I would expect companies like Petrofac to have compliance procedures in place which serves as a defence . So long as there is no linkage between the spokes and the hub then it's going to be difficult to make anything stick . From my experience we have in the past agreed with the SFO to fines for books and record keeping as a WP settlement so it is possible as a means of bringing the matter to a conclusion- Grynberg is a case in point
  12:05 I enjoyed the post, interesting and relevant, but who says something is equally as important, so like to see "IMO" suffix or 3rd party source stated - if nothing else to avoid plagiarism. Also, we often don't know what we are talking about, but use the forum to seek illumination. That is one of the great benefits of an interactive forum. So please continue to post HM1, but note the need for etiquette. :-) IMO. Dave
  11:56 rest it in a dustbin preferably
  11:55 I rest my case
  11:47 was thinking the same lol
  11:35 Post 14329 is a cut and paste from a solicitors website, google the first paragraph. Post 14331 appears to be original work and would make a 9 year old blush. All the lawyers I know can spell, they have a good grasp of punctuation and grammar and take care to proofread their work before publishing.
  11:15 honeymonster in your professional opinion do you believe PFC will get fined? % odds is fine as nothing is certain.
  11:09 CPS - I am a UK lawyer and I work in the oil and gas business in the middle for a long time and I can safely say that 95% of the people on this tread have no idea what they are taking about
  10:44 is that last para a quote? is so where is it from?
  10:12 The law on corporate liability in the United Kingdom makes it difficult to prove that a company is criminally liable if it benefits from the criminal activity of an employee, conducted during their employment. The company will only be liable if it can be proved that the individual involved is sufficiently senior, usually close to or at board level, to be the 'controlling mind and will' of the company. Unlike other countries, the principles of vicarious liability or poor corporate governance, which are matters that are easier to prove, play no part in establishing corporate criminal liability. The present state of the law means it is especially difficult to establish criminal liability against companies with complex or diffuse management structures. In this case, as in any corporate liability case, we have looked closely at the overall structure of the company involved, and the level of management and decision-making powers of those involved, in order to come to a decision."
  09:29 If the Airbus bribery case is used as the benchmark, then PFC will be fined 5% of its revenue - $300m, if charged and found guilty. Does anyone know what the impacts would be on the PFC ?
  nori_wasabi
  08:19 hxxps://www.cityam.com/airbus-agrees-to-pay-record-e991m-uk-fine-in-e3-6bn-global-bribery-settlement/ Totally unrelated case the SFO charged Airbus for not preventing employees bribing people. I think this is how they proceed in most cases, and as I said in PFC's case, as the burden of proof is easier, all you have to do is find one person guilty and the company is guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent rather than the usual innocent until proven guilty. 'Allison Clare, a barrister for the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), told a crowded courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice that Airbus had been accused of five counts of failure to prevent bribery, which were now suspended for three years. Clare said the UK settlement "exceeds the combined sum of all previous UK DPAs". Airbus was ordered to pay a €983m fine and costs to the SFO of €8m. The fine consisted of a disgorgement of profits of €585m and a financial penalty of €398m. The allegations related to an Airbus department which worked with overseas agents which it paid for successful aircraft sales.'
  12:28 Yes they have a confession but I think the SFO want to prove Unaoil are guilty of bribing others first before going with that one as an employee saying he gave money for bribes to Unaoil is one thing but to have Unaoil proven to have bribed Iranian officials is another and completes the circle. All depends on what evidence they have I guess.
  12:16 But with PFC they've already proved the employee did it?
  11:49 1cripes forgot about that, above still valid though if they want to pursue later. I think this is the plan for PFC, prove 'it was the employee what dunnit' then work backwards. All guesswork based on the few facts out there so if anyone can add or subtract happy to hear.