I REFR to the reports “AirAsia execs received US$50 million bribe from Airbus, UK court papers show” and “MACC investigating AirAsia kickback scandal”. 

According to a news release from the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), an indictment was laid  on January 31, 2020 before the president of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in England and Wales, Victoria Sharp.

The indictment was at the instance of the director of the SFO  – a specialist prosecuting authority tackling the top level of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption and part of the UK criminal justice system covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The indictment charges Airbus with five counts of failing to prevent bribery, contrary to Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010.Through the news release, the SFO also informs that it has entered into a record-breaking deferred prosecution agreement with Airbus following its approval by Sharp.

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is an agreement between a prosecutor and a person whom the prosecutor is considering prosecuting for an offence in relation to which a DPA may be entered into under the UK Crime and Justice Act 2013.

It’s akin to a plea bargaining agreement – not unknown under the law in UK and here in Malaysia.

Under the terms of the DPA, Airbus agrees to pay a fine and costs amounting to €991 million (RM4.5 billion) to the SFO following investigations which began in 2016 against the company over allegations that it had used external consultants to bribe customers to buy its civilian and military aircrafts.

The allegations involved Airbus’ commercial and defence and space divisions. The investigations by the SFO were across five jurisdictions: Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Ghana, between 2011 and 2015.

The indictment has now been suspended pursuant to the DPA, which makes reference to a statement of facts (SoF). This SoF is agreed to by Airbus.

According to the SoF, the offence involving AirAsia and AirAsia is the offence of “failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery, contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010”.

The particulars of the offence are stated as follows:

“Between 1 July 2011 and 1 June 2015 Airbus SE failed to prevent persons associated with Airbus SE from bribing others concerned with the purchase of aircraft by AirAsia and AirAsia X airlines from Airbus, namely directors and/or employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X airlines, where the said bribery was intended to obtain or retain business or advantage in the conduct of business for Airbus SE.”

The directors and/or employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X are not named – referred to only as AirAsia Executive 1 and AirAsia Executive 2. But in slightly over 40 paragraphs, the SoF is most revealing, if not damning.

In her judgment following the DPA, Sharp said as follows:

“The seriousness of the criminality in this case hardly needs to be spelled out. As is acknowledged on all sides, it was grave. The conduct took place over many years. It is no exaggeration to describe the investigation it gave rise to as worldwide, extending into every continent in which Airbus operates. The number of countries subject to intense criminal investigation by the various agencies, and the scale and scope of the wrongdoing disclosed in the SoF demonstrate that bribery was to the extent indicated, endemic in two core business areas within Airbus.”

The full DPA, judgment and SoF are available at the SFO website.

After Malaysian Official 1, 1MDB Officer 1, 1MDB Officer 2 and 1MDB Officer 3, it’s now AirAsia Executive 1 and AirAsia Executive 2.

As Superman would have said, this looks like a job for… the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

No, it is the job for the MACC – rightly and truly.

*Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.