Registro Italiano Navale - Breaking News

[toad_oftoadhall]

I'ld be fascinated to see how you have come to the conclusion that I support Rocna over the bribery issue.

On the off chance that you can understand plain English. I am interested in the Rocna question. The Rina question is a spin off from the Rocna one. Persue it if you want, but I'm not particularly interested in either the amateur detective work, the moral outrage, or the avalanche of questions which you and one other are posting.

My rationale for saying you appear to be "support Rocna" over the bribery issue is that you're pouring scorn on the people interesting in finding out if Rocna did, indeed, bribe Rina with phrases like "amateur detective work", "moral outrage" and "avalanche of questions". Looks like you don't want the bribery story confirmed. In the mean time you've gone silent on what in your view is the main issue. So that's my rationale.

In contrast, I'm impartial. I just want to know the truth and I don't really care what the truth turns out to be.

Time will tell.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

As I said, but you deleted in your response, I'm not really interested in your zany conclusions. However, if you want to carry on debating trivia which deflects from your obsession over RINA I'll happily waste time on it.

My interest is bent anchor manufacturers; hence my avatar.

 

[smackdaddy]

So is this one

Very interesting indeed:

A fundamental characteristic of this Act is that an organisation is held responsible for not preventing bribery offences committed by an individual “associated” with the organisation, meaning an individual who carries out his/her activities in the name of and in the interest of the organisation (employees, agents, consortia, etc.). A further characteristic, decidedly innovative compared to similar legislation in other legal systems, concerns jurisdiction of the UK Courts established by the Act which subjects businesses set up in the UK as well as those not set up in the UK but which carry out part of their business in the UK to this Act.

Italian companies which operate directly (through branch offices or subsidiary offices) or indirectly (through agents and intermediaries) in the UK have been charged with considerable responsibility due to the limitless fines and commensurate, at judicial level, with the gravity of the offence committed. However, an organisation may not be held responsible if it can prove it has adopted and effectively implemented “adequate procedures” to prevent offences.

Grant mentioned early 2010 as being the timeframe of this alleged bribery. This Act was adopted April of that same year, entering into force in July.

So the timing of all this is going to be very interesting.

 

[estarzinger]

So is this one

Interestingly, my reading of this law suggests that what we are all discussing is/was NOT a bribe under the definition of the law, because the payment was made in order the facilitate the performance of a regular function (eg issuing a certificate that should be issued). A bribe, by this law, is only a payment to facilitate an 'improper' function (eg issuing a certificate that should not have been issued).

The fact that it is not a bribe under the law, does not make it right or desirable as a way for RINA to do business, but makes it a business problem rather than a legal/criminal one.

Definitions in the law:
"1 Offences of bribing another person

(1) A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.

(2) Case 1 is where—
(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P intends the advantage—
(i) to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii) to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.

(3) Case 2 is where—
(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function
or activity."

 

[bob234]

I guess everyone has their own area of interest. The Rocna thing never interested me that much - this does.

For heavens sake why not? I am strongly drawn to your inclination to take a moral stance about things. I even had a reputation for doing the same thing in my working life to the extent it worked against my career (nobody likes a person taking a moral stance that gets in the way of 'business progress' or damages egos).

The Rocna story has MUCH MUCH more content about unethical behaviour (and I respect the fact that this thread is about Rina not Rocna, but I am reacting to your saying that the Rocna thing hasn't interested you much), than we have heard about Rina, in so many ways, persistently so over time, that would be BOUND to interest someone who seems to share those same values. I don't understand your relative lack of interest in Rocna's conduct unless you have mistaken it for a 'typical anchor thread'. The unethical behaviour seems not to have been disclosed to CMP, or if it has CMP are showing no signs of being troubled by it yet. For many that is big.

Whereas the Rina thing, whilst clearly a story, about an individual at Rina, who processed something after a bribe, that should have been processed before the bribe (as far as we know) has been dealt with (most likely by termination of employment) by Rina. Rina went on to produce very limited certification that fell far short of Bambury's expectations. Where is the story? Why is it felt to be so dramatic?

There is NO suggestion - yet - that Rina approved something they shouldn't have done. Unless and until we hear that has happened it IS a story - but one that has died because Rina dealt with it.

But the real story relating to Rina is that Bambury, having instructed Grant to 'oil the wheels', and funded him to do so, then set about trying to sue the same person for 'stealing' those funds! Why? Because he didn't get certification to the extent he hoped for? Who knows? Did he want to muzzle Grant with the court case until he had concluded the CMP deal? Again, who knows? But those are some of the open questions that arise - but which we need to await answers.

The person who disclosed it to us, who is the only person on here who knows anything about it, has been crystal clear on many things and as clear as he can about other things, subject to court cases. When he can say more we will know more. But his information has been solid so far.

Obviously we can speculate about things until we have later and better information. Questions arise which I suspect will be answered in time. But interpretations have been made which, whilst dramatic, are just not supported by the information we have so far been given. If only the various owners of Rocna would deal with issues as well as Rina appear to have done there wouldn't be a Rocna story any more!

Sorry Smack. I realise we are unlikely to agree on this but I am baffled why the dead story is being given legs when the alive one doesn't interest you.

Best,

Bob

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Interestingly, my reading of this law suggests that what we are all discussing is/was NOT a bribe under the definition of the law, because the payment was made in order the facilitate the performance of a regular function (eg issuing a certificate that should be issued). A bribe, by this law, is only a payment to facilitate an 'improper' function (eg issuing a certificate that should not have been issued).

Suggest you read this http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-quick-start-guide.pdf
It explains the illegality of "facilitation payments" though I'm struggling to see the connection between Uk legislation and payments made by a NZ company to people in the Shanghai offices of an Italian company.

 

[smackdaddy]

Interestingly, my reading of this law suggests that what we are all discussing is/was NOT a bribe under the definition of the law, because the payment was made in order the facilitate the performance of a regular function (eg issuing a certificate that should be issued). A bribe, by this law, is only a payment to facilitate an 'improper' function (eg issuing a certificate that should not have been issued).

The fact that it is not a bribe under the law, does not make it right or desirable as a way for RINA to do business, but makes it a business problem rather than a legal/criminal one.

Definitions in the law:
"1 Offences of bribing another person

(1) A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.

(2) Case 1 is where—
(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P intends the advantage—
(i) to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii) to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.

(3) Case 2 is where—
(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function
or activity."

That's a good point Estar. The bottom line though is that we really don't know what function was "purchased".

Grant has mentioned Bambury's surprise that full certification, what he thought he was buying, was not provided (i.e. - the end result you allude to), but we know nothing of what exactly was promised by the RINA people for the alleged bribes, or even exactly what certification elements were in play at the time.

You may be absolutely correct with your conclusion that the lack of full certification proves the absence of an actual "bribe". But I don't see that clean of a line between the two yet.

The kicker here, from what I see in that Act, is that the entire organization is responsible for the actions of each employee. So the "bad apple" argument doesn't fly here.

 

[bob234]

My rationale for saying you appear to be "support Rocna" over the bribery issue is that you're pouring scorn on the people interesting in finding out if Rocna did, indeed, bribe Rina with phrases like "amateur detective work", "moral outrage" and "avalanche of questions". Looks like you don't want the bribery story confirmed. In the mean time you've gone silent on what in your view is the main issue. So that's my rationale.

In contrast, I'm impartial. I just want to know the truth and I don't really care what the truth turns out to be.

Time will tell.

The point is that most of us accept that the 'bribe', in whatever form, WAS paid. It has been admitted by one who took part. It has been accepted by the person who you accuse of pouring scorn on you. It seems also to have been accepted by you.

Your questions have not been about establishing whether Rocna did indeed bribe Rina. They have gone much farther.

Bob

 

[smackdaddy]

Sorry Smack. I realise we are unlikely to agree on this but I am baffled why the dead story is being given legs when the alive one doesn't interest you.

Best,

Bob

Don't get me wrong. I personally think what has happend with Rocna is a disgrace. When I say I'm not interested, I don't mean that it's any less morally reprehensible. I'm just saying that the market is taking care of it - as it most always does. Furthermore, the Rocna story is being exhaustively hashed and re-hashed by thousands across the forums. I don't feel the need, or interest, to add to that. Whether Rocna succeeds or fails is not a monumental thing for the public in the big picture - there are plenty of other anchor products out there to trust.

But, this is exactly the issue - and the point of my interest. Standards and certification organizations like RINA deal in one crucial product: public trust. That's why all the manufacturers point us buyers to certifications by organizations such as them...so we'll trust the quality and integrity of the product. There should be no question about that certification - because otherwise, what's the point?

If what Grant is saying actually happened (and most around here hold him up as honest and forthcoming - it can't go both ways), then the public trust on which RINA trades in 42 countries is, to say the least, in question.

To me, and I presume, to RINA, that's a big deal.

 

[bob234]

If what Grant is saying actually happened (and most around here hold him up as honest and forthcoming - it can't go both ways), then the public trust on which RINA trades in 42 countries is, to say the least, in question.

To me, that's a big deal.

Hi,

I agree with you entirely about public trust.

Where we differ I think is that, assuming what Grant says is true, and we both expect that it is, then it COULD be a big deal but most likely isn't based on what we know so far:-

- If it turns out that Rina certified something they shouldn't - it's a big deal.

- If it turns out that Rina DIDN't deal with the offending employee(s) - it's a big deal.

- If it turns out that Rina don't care one way or another and aren't inclined to state their position on values or the law on their website - it's a big deal.

But nothing we have been told so far suggests any of these things to be the case and it can only now be a big deal if we assume Rina are guilty of things we don't know about. Isn't that a dangerous and irresponsible course for us to be taking?

I take heart that if Rina had issued a certificate without proper foundation that Grant would have them in his sights as well. It would be in his interests to pursue a certificate issued on fraudulent grounds following a bribe from Holdfast wouldn't it? Wouldn't that have strengthened Grant's case?

Not only has Grant not accused them of that he has specifically said that he doesn't see a reason to hang Rina out on this.

So, no, I don't agree that what Grant says has actually happened leads to a lack of public trust in Rina. But I do agree that public trust in Rina is crucial.

I repeat, I wish Rocna showed a fraction of Rina's (apparent) integrity in dealing with infractions.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[estarzinger]

Suggest you read this http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-quick-start-guide.pdf
It explains the illegality of "facilitation payments" though I'm struggling to see the connection between Uk legislation and payments made by a NZ company to people in the Shanghai offices of an Italian company.

I might be wrong about this (not a lawyer), but reading the full text of the law suggests the facilitation clause is only related to government officials, and not for business transactions. "Facilitation payments, which are payments to induce officials..."

As to how this UK law applies to the specific situation . . . it probably does not directly - is only indicative of current western law on the subject, brought up by someone else.

But I believe we have a much more direct indication that what was done is not against the relevant law . . . the situation was apparently explained with documentation provided in open NZ court . . . and the court is not now prosecuting for bribery.

I agree that the ROCNA story appears to be rather more egregious - apparent serial lying and false advertising and misleading marketing by the entire ownership and senior management team related to an important safety product.

With RINA we have a case of a remote employee taking a simple facilitation payment (to produce correct and proper documents) where the employee has been identified and punished. I guess I have see way to much 'facilitation' in business to get very excited about this.

 

[smackdaddy]

But nothing we have been told so far suggests any of these things to be the case and it can only now be a big deal if we assume Rina are guilty of things we don't know about. Isn't that a dangerous and irresponsible course for us to be taking?

Bear in mind all we have at this point are Grant's statements...on any of this.

Now, for those heavily invested in the Rocna debate, his statements are apparently gold. But, what I've seen thus far regarding the RINA issue is some equivocating and relying on implication rather than clarity. That's great for elongated discussion and long-term focus on the story and its source - but it's not great for the reputation of the international organization implicated.

My point is that although you seem comfortable to draw conclusions from Grant's statements, I'm not so comfortable doing so. And this is purely because of his direct involvement in this stuff.

I would much rather hear from RINA, or an additional independent source, what exactly happened and what was done to rectify it.

You may be absolutely right - this may turn out to be nothing. And if so, great. I'm no Quixote. But, in my opinion, it is a far more dangerous and irresponsible course to not ask questions in a situation like this.

 

[bob234]

I agree that the ROCNA story appears to be rather more egregious - apparent serial lying and false advertising and misleading marketing by the entire ownership and senior management team related to an important safety product.

With RINA we have a case of a remote employee taking a simple facilitation payment (to produce correct and proper documents) where the employee has been identified and punished. I guess I have see way to much 'facilitation' in business to get very excited about this.

Hi Evans,

I couldn't agree more.

Bob

 

[smackdaddy]

With RINA we have a case of a remote employee taking a simple facilitation payment (to produce correct and proper documents) where the employee has been identified and punished. I guess I have see way to much 'facilitation' in business to get very excited about this.

Again, the details you list are not what Grant said. If that is what you want to deduce from his statements, that's perfectly fine. But those are not the words he used. Had they been, this thread wouldn't exist and I would be drinking rum instead of blathering on with you guys...heh-heh.

 

[bob234]

Bear in mind all we have at this point are Grant's statements...on any of this.

Absolutely agree. That is why I feel it is premature to set too many hares running when we don't have a basis for doing so.

I suspect we are in 'violent agreement' on a lot of things!

Cheers,

Bob

 

[bob234]

Again, the details you list are not what Grant said.

Sorry Smack, but that is what Grant has said. He certainly hasn't implied more than that (although some of his readers have implied more) and I'm sure he would have pursued Rina if he had evidence that it was more than that.

Bob

 

[smackdaddy]

Absolutely agree. That is why I feel it is premature to set too many hares running when we don't have a basis for doing so.

I suspect we are in 'violent agreement' on a lot of things!

Cheers,

Bob

Cheers to you too Bob. Now I'm off to have that rum and finish an article on Rescue Safety.

 

[smackdaddy]

Sorry Smack, but that is what Grant has said. He certainly hasn't implied more than that and I'm sure he would have pursued Rina if he had evidence that it was more than that.

Bob

No it's not what he said. Here's the post where I list exactly what he said and the implications of those statements:

I was directed who to pay by Bambury , not by Rina.

Obviously I did not make it clear enough.

Agreed.

We started here:

The basic overview is that Bambury complained to the police that I had stolen an amount of around 5k USD from him during my last trip to Shanghai.

He claimed in his evidence that this money was for me to make cash payments to Rina for expenses incurred in obtaining certification.

The facts , backed up by emails and other written informations, are that he instructed me to bribe certain officals at Rina and at another manufacturing facility with this cash amount in order to gain certification. Upon my return to NZ he praised me for a job well done and announced to the world that certification had been obtained.

The same point you're making now. But this original post left open the important questions of where exactly the money went, and what exactly Bambury was congratulating you for in light of the above quote.

Then we got to here, which shed some light on those questions:

After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask (by Bambury I assume) what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

Bambury told you to ask. Again, your point above. Okay, who did you ask? Who gave you this answer that you then took back to Bambury?

The answer in early 2010 was that $$$$$$$$$$ needed to be paid to individuals , not the organisation and those individuals would then stamp their part of the process and nobody would be the wiser.

From this point on, it's easy to see that Bambury would give you the directions he did - along with the money to pay those people just as you say. But you stated earlier that he had no clue of the process, so the information about who needed to be paid seems to have had to come from another source, through you, and you certainly imply above that RINA personnel were that source.

Then you cement that implication with this statement:

My view is that there should not, nor need to be, a witch hunt against Rina as an organisation, as they were not in control or had any knowledge of the actions of a few of their employees.

It has already been reported back to me that those employees have already been removed and punished for their actions, just what that entails I would not like to think about.

So, yes, what you have written thus far is pretty confusing. Bambury's role? Your role? RINA'S role? A lot of grey area here - yet people at RINA are being sacked and punished.

Look, I don't have anything at all to gain from going after RINA. Remember, you're the one that outed them here. And having been an actual participant in the illicit money shoveling, I'd say you're a pretty valuable witness in that respect.

But you need to understand, Grant, that what you've written and/or implied in the above posts are serious indictments of a 150-year-old, international standards organization. The fact that you were directly involved makes it even more serious.

It's a big deal.

"Bribes" - not "facilitation payments". Multiple RINA "individuals" - not one (though one seemed to be the primary hold-up). His asking "someone" (presumably RINA) what needed to be done to move certification along - and taking that answer back to Bambury. "Individuals" needed to be paid - not organization. "Heard back" that multiple RINA employees "removed and punished" - not one (with no other corroboration on this).

So, again, you guys are actually the ones drawing conclusions that fly in the face of exactly what Grant said - and/or buying his assurances on RINA's actions. I'm just not willing to do that. I'd rather know what really happened.

Now to that rum. Goodnight fellas.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

For heavens sake why not? ..................
Sorry Smack. I realise we are unlikely to agree on this but I am baffled why the dead story is being given legs when the alive one doesn't interest you.

Best,

Bob

Could it be because the RINA issue could have far wider implications than a few yottie anchors. Or could it be because the Rocna thread has run to over 900 posts and to quote the rabid rigger we are no longer.

interested in either the amateur detective work, the moral outrage, or the avalanche of questions which you and one other are posting.

We know that there are lots of dodgy Rocna anchors out there so we know what to do - if you have one, get rid. I did. All we are waiting for is to see whether CMP will produce good Rocnas or stop producing at all. So really there isnt anything more to talk about until there is news. Its a dead horse and we should stop flogging it until then.

 

[macd]

Do they really eat mans best friend?

So far as I know there's no record of their eating anchors
However, if you look up 'dog meat' on Wiki...