Corruption Case at TOTALELFINA

[Christophe]

Uh I dream ... the new CEO of TOTAL who was appointed not long ago, is already under consideration ... It was a set up this appointment or what?

Christophe de Margerie, under judicial control, has the prohibition to meet the ex-Iranian president Ali Akbar Hachémi Rafsandjani and his son, quoted in this case of secret commissions in Iran.

Article on NouvelObs

[elephant]

I do not understand this matter: what harm is there in paying bribes to FOREIGN officials to ensure its supply? The system is like that. We can imagine that the Americans do not do it.

(certainly for foreign officials vis-à-vis their own country, there is a crime, but crimes committed by foreigners abroad do not concern France, but it must not be entered into the official account to avoid let him get caught)

Personally, I am willing to be corrupt , but I do not yet see in which area.

[Christophe]

Toutafé ... the world is "rotten" to the core and that still seems to astonish jurists

What I find odd (hence the creation of this subject) is the fact that the CEO has just been appointed .... and hop off a "business" ... we do not know everything in my opinion

Well, I recently learned that the humanitarian catastrophe of darfur is linked to oil ... Chinese ...

When it is China we dare to say it ... when it is us (or our allies) we are silent ...

[elephant]

yes, we are the good ones,

the enemies are the others, didn't you know?

[Christophe]

Ahwwwwwwwwwouisuiscon

[Targol]

Uh I dream ... the new CEO of TOTAL who was appointed not long ago, is already under consideration ... It was a set up this appointment or what?

He is indicted for acts committed while he was responsible for the Middle East at Total.
He is also under the blow of another indictment for a case (dating from the same time) of violation of the protocol "oil for food".
It was therefore as Total's Middle East manager at the material time that he was indicted, not as the newly promoted president of Total.

I do not understand this matter: what harm is there in paying bribes to FOREIGN officials to ensure its supply? The system is like that. We can imagine that the Americans do not do it.

Beginning to know you a little, elephant, I think that, despite the absence of smiley, this is to be read in the 43rd degree.
However, and having discussed it recently with friends who were asking the same question in a very serious way, here is the answer I gave them:
A young person who is caught with a bar of hashish can be indicted and even (according to the courts) be suspended from prison. What credibility would justice have if it did not deal with such serious crimes?
Because, if corruption took place abroad, it is with funds from a French company, or, in France, using the private funds of a company in such a limpid manner and without invoice, it is calls for the abuse of social good and it is reprehensible.

[elephant]

"oil-for-food" violation, I'm not saying, but this is Iran.
in Belgium, there is legislation on secret commissions: they are taxed and not deductible from the profit of the company, but allowed.
indeed: if an occult commission paid abroad to a foreigner is the only way to win a market, I don't see where it is a crime. The crime may only exist in the hands of the foreign official commissioned from his own country, but that is another story.

[Targol]

indeed: if an occult commission paid abroad to a foreigner is the only way to win a market, I don't see where it is a crime.

What credit should be given to a so-called democratic country which encourages (or at least does not condemn) bribes?
The bribe is, you will admit, anything but democratic.
It makes it possible to finance the power in place to the detriment of the opposition (which, for its part, does not receive it since it occupies no key position).
Moreover, many organizations responsible for measuring the degree of democratization of a country use the level of corruption indicator for this: the higher the corruption, the less democracy there is.

[elephant]

I agree with you, but when Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, etc. produce more oil cheaply, we can talk about it again

it is a question here of securing supplies, tens of thousands of jobs and entire sections of the national economy depend on it.

the beautiful hypocrisy is to say on one side:

deal only with democratic states

and on the other

assure us of low-cost supplies

for some exports, same problem: no bribe, no sales