Indranee Rajah Defends CPIB’s Stance
Minister Indranee Rajah has responded to concerns regarding the stern warnings issued by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) corruption case. In a Facebook post on February 2, she stated that assertions about the CPIB’s actions stem from a lack of factual understanding and an incomplete grasp of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with U.S. authorities.
The KOM Corruption Scandal
From 2001 to 2014, six former senior KOM executives paid bribes amounting to US$55 million (S$73 million) to Brazilian officials to secure 13 projects. These payments were funneled through consulting agreements with shell companies controlled by intermediaries. KOM admitted to the scheme in a 2017 DPA and agreed to a conditional warning and a global fine of US$422 million.
CPIB’s Explanation
On January 12, 2023, CPIB issued stern warnings to the six former KOM executives, citing evidentiary challenges in prosecuting the complex, transnational case. The bureau noted difficulties in obtaining foreign documents and compelling overseas witnesses to testify, which impacted the decision to forgo prosecution.
Despite these challenges, CPIB stressed that all factors, including individual culpability and the evidence available, were weighed before deciding on the stern warnings.
Legal Commentary Sparks Debate
Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal expressed concerns in a February 1 commentary, questioning the adequacy of CPIB’s explanation. He argued that the transnational nature of the case and evidentiary issues alone were insufficient reasons for non-prosecution.
Harpreet highlighted the availability of significant evidence, digital forensic tools, and international cooperation mechanisms, suggesting that CPIB had avenues to address these challenges. He called for greater transparency, asking for specifics on missing evidence, the role of overseas witnesses, and the significance of foreign documents.
In his view, given KOM’s admission and the case’s severity, the lack of prosecution raised doubts. He emphasised that a detailed justification was necessary for public trust and national interest. Harpreet’s commentary was later removed from the Singapore Law Watch website.
Indranee’s Response
Indranee underscored that criminal charges require sufficient evidence, adding that “sentiment” cannot dictate legal proceedings. She assured the public that the facts would be explained in Parliament on February 6, allowing the public to assess the situation independently.
Minister for Law K. Shanmugam echoed her sentiments, supporting her commitment to clarifying the case.
Parliamentary Inquiries
MPs from both the People’s Action Party (PAP) and Workers’ Party (WP) have submitted questions for the upcoming parliamentary session. PAP MPs are seeking details on the rationale behind the stern warnings and whether penalties were adequate. WP MPs have raised over 10 questions concerning the decision’s potential impact on Singapore’s reputation and its companies abroad.
The parliamentary session on February 6 is expected to provide a clearer understanding of the CPIB’s decisions and the government’s stance on the matter.
