When mentioning the name “Siemens”, thinking initially goes to the German technology company (Siemens), which is true; The company is known for its technological products and reliable services in the field of communications, energy, transportation and medical equipment, but the courts may recall many corruption cases that are mainly related to bribery to obtain contracts.
It suffices to write the “Siemens scandal” on the Google search engine to find that Google is about to ask you “which scandal you mean?”, Is it a scandal in 1914 in Japan, or 2004 in Greece, or that in Kuwait, it seems that you mean that in Switzerland; Then you find a report for the American newspaper “The New York Times” entitled “in Siemens … bribery is just a budget item!”, To understand that the topic is greater than just a scandal.
Rooted behavior
The beginning was in 1914 in Japan, where the Japanese navy was implementing an expansion project that required a contract with technology companies, most of which are located in Europe. Later, “Siemens” appeared as the company that monopolizes contracts with the Japanese navy, which was interpreted at the time as one of the major technology companies, but the fact was that the company provided a bribes of 15% of the value of the deal for those responsible for buying equipment.
Later, when the British company “Vicars” presented a bribe of 25% of the total deal for a Japanese marine commander, Siemens discovered that there are those who are digging behind, and sent to her office in Tokyo inquiring about her dominance because of the British deal, so that one of her employees leak deals and bribes to Reuters, where Japanese newspapers also grabbed her, before escaping to escaping to Germany.
With the police and military intelligence in the case, the Japanese Navy Procurement Office admitted to receiving bribes from the Vicers and Siemens. While Vicars received a double penalty from the Japanese and British judiciary, the Japanese judiciary imposed a fine on Siemens, and prevented it from making deals in the future, considering that German law then does not prevent bribery.
Structural reasons
Perhaps this made Siemens a company that puts bribery in the budget, but rather a competitive advantage to destroy deals, which has become part of its behavior, and in fact Siemens is not the only German company involved in bribery cases.
Siemens is due to two basic reasons:
the first: The company’s factories are exposed to bombing and patent confiscation during World War II, so that the company resorted to bribery to revitalize its operations in countries with low industrial activity.
the second: The classification of the German tax law lies bribery as “commercial expenses” and not a criminal crime, until 1999.
In 1999, Germany joined the bribery ban, and a year later, the Swiss and Austrian authorities suspected millions of dollars from the payments of Siemens, which flow into external accounts.
The biggest fine in the bribery case
In 2002, executive officials in the company met to find a better mechanism to hide bribery payments, and they reached the appointment of accounting director Reinhard Squacheic to manage the “commercial aspect of bribery”.
Sikachik has supervised since 2002 an annual budget for bribery ranging from 40 to 50 million dollars until his resignation in 2006, when doubts began to revolve in New York about the company’s suspicious behavior, given that its shares are trading on the Wall Street Stock Exchange.
In November 2006, SICACICK arrested and German police carried out about 200 raids around the country, including the homes of officials and headquarters of the company. In conjunction with this, US officials began investigating the case, to resign CEO of Siemens Klaus Kleinfield after less than a year, in April 2007.
The case ended with a two -year prison sentence sentence and a fine of 150 thousand dollars, and to judge the company to pay the greatest fine in a bribery case, estimated at 1.6 billion dollars, along with an additional one billion in exchange for secondary fines and fees in both Germany and the United States, and the costs of internal investigations and reforms.
Return to right
In the late 1990s, while the Greek government was preparing to organize the Olympic Games in 2004, the government telecommunications company in Greece “ote” announced offers to develop its network in the country.
Because the games season generates a lot of money, getting a huge contract with the telecommunications company is a “purpose that justifies any means.”
Siemens turned 100 million euros to a company in Dubai, then to a fake company in the Caribbean, and then into secret accounts in Switzerland for a senior executive official in the Siemens branch in Greece, and it is presented in the form of bribes to ensure Siemens obtaining contracts for the development of the country’s telecommunications network in preparation for the Olympic Games in 2004.
The money was distributed to the opposition and government figures, and the case was only revealed in 2008 after two years of secret investigations, to face officials in Siemens, Greece, headed by its former director Mecalis Christofurakos, charged with bribery and money laundering.
In 2015, the convicts in the case were sentenced to 15 years in prison, to be released two years later, based on the principle of limitation cases, and the age of the case had already exceeded 15 years.
In the period between 2009 and 2010, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Water and Electricity had formed the so -called “neutral committee” to study the contracts of a power station, and decided to withdraw the privileges it provided to the Japanese “Toshiba” and gave them to Siemens, and this raised doubts about the process.
In 2011, the Kuwaiti prosecution opened an investigation into the case, following the “Committee for Committee” in Siemens, information that the company obtained the contract after paying bribes of about two million dollars to officials in the ministry.
It is noteworthy in the Kuwait case that Siemens was the one who discovered the case and informed the authorities, through a committee established specifically to monitor the campaigns of contracts for contracts, after the company paid a high financial fine in 2008, which shows the impact of the law and penalties in reducing corruption.
