smackdaddy
New member
Last edited:
Registro Italiano Navale - Breaking News
- Thread starter toad_oftoadhall
- Start date
smackdaddy
New member
I *think* Rina might be off the hook on that. I assume Rina certify anchor "A". If Rocna then decide to sell a completely different anchor then Rina can't really be blamed, or expected to do ongoing work to ensure that the anchor being sold is the one they certified.
That may not be the case though. Maybe certifying firms have some kind of obligation to look out for subsiquent switches. It's certainly in their interest to. (How does Rina certification add value to a product if the consumer can't be sure the product he's buying is the one they certified.)
There's two paragraphs of amusing conjecture.
A question - I wonder if there's a procedure to inform Rina of changes to designs so they can rubber stamp approval in the event of changes they consider to be minor.
Good point. I have no idea on that - but it does raise some interesting questions regarding how the buying public perceives certification, especially if it's something that can be easily manipulated or skirted.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
It's a bit of a tangent but can someone tell me how Grant came to be owed cash (87 grand was it?) by Rocna? Not really important in any way - just curious.
bob234
Member
Thanks for that Toad. Even though I had read it it went completely over my head!!
Cheers,
Bob
toad_oftoadhall
New member
No probs at all. It's easy to miss stuff and always worth double checking.
bob234
Member
I assume so as well. In fact we have been told that Rocna made such a payment. I thought I might have missed something but your answer avoids my question and talks only about whether the money 'came from Rocna'.
But you said someone 'took $5000' from Rocna (not might, or accused of, but actually took). That wording implies theft and that was the point of my question. Where did you get that idea from?
I know that Bambury has made an accusation along those lines and we are told that has been dismissed in court. As far as I know nobody other than Bambury and you has implied theft.
So, again, where did you get such a dramatic idea from?
Bob
toad_oftoadhall
New member
First up, *everything* I say on this topic should be prefixed with the caveat of "might, or accused of". I will, no doubt, forget from time to time 'cos it takes ages to type. If I do it's a mistake. So far one sole accusation is my sole source for this and I've not yet seen any confirmation that it's true. (I'm sure it's on its way though.) So yeah, none of this is backed up with any evidence and I was guilty of failing to acknowledge that, sorry I forgot.
No, I didn't mean theft, 'cos I assumed he was the sole owner of Holdfast at that time). I did mean take though. If this story is true he (for want of a better word) "embezzeled" cash out of his firm for illegal purposes. There is no way that bribery will be a tax deductable business expense & if Steve took it for himself as salary to pay bribes with he needs to be paying personal tax on it.
If we could legally take $5000 out of a business for something like an unreceipted bribe then we'd all do it and never need to pay any personal tax.
We're told that Banbury claimed that the $5000 he gave to Grant was for legitimate business expenses. In which case I think we can rule out the cash being Banbury's personal cash 'cos the Police would surely have smelt a rat.
I guess we need to see details of the court case to understand where the $5000 actually came from, but I'd say it's almost certain the cash was taken out of Rocna/Holdfast and it's hard to see how it could have legitimately come out of Holdfast/Rocna given what we're told it was for!
bob234
Member
I think I see where you were coming from.
As far as I know Grant King was not an owner at Holdfast but an employee or contractor. The cash came from Holdfast which I understand is/was Bambury's company. This is why I questioned the term 'taken from' as that would suggest Grant King taking money from Bambury's company. This seems unlikely given it is from Grant that we learnt of the payments in the first place.
Of course Bambury would claim it was for legitimate a business expense because he would not wish it to be known he was allegedly associated with improper payments. I don't imagine that those payments would have been supported by receipts by their very nature.
It seems Bambury's attempt to prosecute King failed (as the case was dismissed) because King had retained sufficient written evidence to support his assertion that he was acting on instruction from Bambury.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out but it still doesn't look too good for Bambury or CMP unless they have kept something up their sleeve.
Cheers,
Bob
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Sorry I though it was pretty clear the "he" in my post is Bambury.
I would imagine if and when we get the detail of the trial there will be no suggestion that Grant took the cash out of Holdfast/Rocnas account. Merely that Banbury gave Grant $5000 and didn't get it back.
No, my understanding is that we've been told Banbury took the cash and gave it to Grant to pay the bribe.
Indeed. To the tax man it will look as though Banbury took 5 grand tax free for himself.
Yup. That's what we've been told. Begs the question why the hell Bambury would wish to draw attention to the fact he'd been part of a corrupt payment but there you go.
If Grant's tale is true I would hope that Bambury gets done for wasting police time. No theft ever took place.
smackdaddy
New member
No time for a write-up right now, but I've found a few interesting things regarding the context for this story, and why the alleged RINA bribery is a "big deal". I'll try to put a short explanation together in the next few days.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Should be interesting.
smackdaddy
New member
PART 1 (This is long. If you don't like long - don't read.)
Okay - like I said above, I'm wrapping up another project and can start to put a bit more time into this. What I'm currently looking into is the question of "Is this really a big deal?" In other words, what is the context for this alleged bribery? So this post is just a quick-and-dirty summary of what I've found thus far that starts to paint the bigger picture...and there is a lot.
As this RINA thing has played out, there have been some interesting viewpoints expressed, some of which are thought-provoking, and some of which are worthy of a nice slow face palm.
Some have complained that the RINA issue has "nothing to do" with the Rocna issue/debate. I'll assume that what they mean is that they don't like having a second thread of discussion detracting in any way from the rabid focus on Rocna in that thread. I make this assumption because any other conclusion is bordering on ludicrous...since the issue was raised in the Rocna thread by the actual Rocna source himself...and since the RINA certification has been one of the core issues of the entire Rocna debate since the Nicene Council started batting it around just after Constantine's shank bent while on holiday in Rome.
The fact is, this has everything to do with the Rocna issue - yet potentially makes the Rocna issue a mere footnote.
Others have argued that the alleged bribery of RINA officials was not that big a deal due to the fact that full certification was not given to Rocna in the end. In other words, the fact that Rocna did not get what they wanted for the alleged bribes they paid to RINA meant that RINA did nothing wrong. But, it's hard for me to see how such a "fraud" by RINA would somehow absolve RINA of wrongdoing with the alleged "bribery". Or, along these same lines, some have argued that these bribes were simply a "cultural issue" (i.e. - greasing the wheels to move things along in a business culture where this is common). And while this argument creates a little more gray area around the issue than the other one above, it still overlooks the fundamental problem of this bribery.
That fundamental problem is this: for global enterprises, for consumers, for the general public, for insurers, for financiers, for governments (EU, UN, etc.), RINA's primary product is assurance....or trust.
This is precisely why these allegations are so potentially damning. If true, the very product on which RINA trades is deeply suspect - much like a sub-standard Rocna anchor is suspect. However, unlike the relatively limited potential dangers involved with a bent shank, the potential dangers and damages involved in corruption and the resulting loss of confidence in an organization like RINA are almost incomprehensibly huge. And this is precisely because of RINA's scope and reach, and all the assurance dependencies across more than a dozen global industries and governing organizations built on that assumed trust.
To give you a sense of that scope and reach, here is some info from the RINA website (emphasis mine):
And the specific sectors/business areas served by RINA:
So it's inarguable that the reach and impact of RINA is, to say the least, significant. And it's equally inarguable that a loss of trust in the professional assurances of RINA would be catastrophic to not only RINA, but to anything (product, service, system, etc.) that carries its assurance. There's a lot of money at stake. But thus far we are talking generalities. We need to look at how Grant's alleged bribery of RINA officials draw into question the entire organization itself - beyond the scope of a few "bad apple" individuals at RINA - as some have held.
The answer to this is twofold: First, the fundamental job of RINA is to assure that this kind of thing isn't happening within organizations with whom its international clients do business. It is the standards "watch dog" or "enforcer" for its clients.
And second, those very standards discount the "bad apple" argument here. To illustrate this, we've already talked above about the implications of RINA's involvement with The Bribery Act of 2010. RINA purports to be an enforcer of this act with the following from their website (truncated):
By its own standard above, the obvious conclusion here is that if an individual at RINA accepted a bribe - RINA accepted a bribe. And if this is the case, the next question is this: If Mr. King bribed RINA, how can the above anti-bribery services and assurances be trusted? Furthermore, if there is no public information on this incident or, more importantly, an accounting of the steps RINA has taken (if any) to address the problem within their own organization, how can RINA be trusted to deliver the above professional support services - or any other assurance services - for other companies?
Okay - like I said above, I'm wrapping up another project and can start to put a bit more time into this. What I'm currently looking into is the question of "Is this really a big deal?" In other words, what is the context for this alleged bribery? So this post is just a quick-and-dirty summary of what I've found thus far that starts to paint the bigger picture...and there is a lot.
As this RINA thing has played out, there have been some interesting viewpoints expressed, some of which are thought-provoking, and some of which are worthy of a nice slow face palm.
Some have complained that the RINA issue has "nothing to do" with the Rocna issue/debate. I'll assume that what they mean is that they don't like having a second thread of discussion detracting in any way from the rabid focus on Rocna in that thread. I make this assumption because any other conclusion is bordering on ludicrous...since the issue was raised in the Rocna thread by the actual Rocna source himself...and since the RINA certification has been one of the core issues of the entire Rocna debate since the Nicene Council started batting it around just after Constantine's shank bent while on holiday in Rome.
The fact is, this has everything to do with the Rocna issue - yet potentially makes the Rocna issue a mere footnote.
Others have argued that the alleged bribery of RINA officials was not that big a deal due to the fact that full certification was not given to Rocna in the end. In other words, the fact that Rocna did not get what they wanted for the alleged bribes they paid to RINA meant that RINA did nothing wrong. But, it's hard for me to see how such a "fraud" by RINA would somehow absolve RINA of wrongdoing with the alleged "bribery". Or, along these same lines, some have argued that these bribes were simply a "cultural issue" (i.e. - greasing the wheels to move things along in a business culture where this is common). And while this argument creates a little more gray area around the issue than the other one above, it still overlooks the fundamental problem of this bribery.
That fundamental problem is this: for global enterprises, for consumers, for the general public, for insurers, for financiers, for governments (EU, UN, etc.), RINA's primary product is assurance....or trust.
This is precisely why these allegations are so potentially damning. If true, the very product on which RINA trades is deeply suspect - much like a sub-standard Rocna anchor is suspect. However, unlike the relatively limited potential dangers involved with a bent shank, the potential dangers and damages involved in corruption and the resulting loss of confidence in an organization like RINA are almost incomprehensibly huge. And this is precisely because of RINA's scope and reach, and all the assurance dependencies across more than a dozen global industries and governing organizations built on that assumed trust.
To give you a sense of that scope and reach, here is some info from the RINA website (emphasis mine):
And the specific sectors/business areas served by RINA:
So it's inarguable that the reach and impact of RINA is, to say the least, significant. And it's equally inarguable that a loss of trust in the professional assurances of RINA would be catastrophic to not only RINA, but to anything (product, service, system, etc.) that carries its assurance. There's a lot of money at stake. But thus far we are talking generalities. We need to look at how Grant's alleged bribery of RINA officials draw into question the entire organization itself - beyond the scope of a few "bad apple" individuals at RINA - as some have held.
The answer to this is twofold: First, the fundamental job of RINA is to assure that this kind of thing isn't happening within organizations with whom its international clients do business. It is the standards "watch dog" or "enforcer" for its clients.
And second, those very standards discount the "bad apple" argument here. To illustrate this, we've already talked above about the implications of RINA's involvement with The Bribery Act of 2010. RINA purports to be an enforcer of this act with the following from their website (truncated):
By its own standard above, the obvious conclusion here is that if an individual at RINA accepted a bribe - RINA accepted a bribe. And if this is the case, the next question is this: If Mr. King bribed RINA, how can the above anti-bribery services and assurances be trusted? Furthermore, if there is no public information on this incident or, more importantly, an accounting of the steps RINA has taken (if any) to address the problem within their own organization, how can RINA be trusted to deliver the above professional support services - or any other assurance services - for other companies?
Last edited:
smackdaddy
New member
PART 2
Let's take a deeper look at where RINA's assurances on such matters appear (i.e. - its reach and scope). Consider the official report in 2004 from the OECD Working Group: "Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention - REPORT ON ITALY". Granted, this initiative dealt mostly with the bribery of public officials, but the point of the initiative was to highlight the steps Italian business and government had taken to that point to quash such unethical behavior (in other words, to put a stop to the prevalent "just greasing the wheels" ethos) - as it expanded business opportunities across Europe. Look who's mentioned as the assurance entity in this initiative:
Verification and certification of those adopting this model? Hmm. But, you may ask, is this really a significant part of their business - or are we just focusing on the "mole hill"?
As of 2007, the Social Accountability portion of RINA's business was the fastest growing. From RINA's 2007 Annual Report:
Are you beginning to see how this allegation is opening a pretty substantial can of worms for RINA? Apart from the direct threat to one of its most lucrative business areas, RINA's global reputation, it's very brand, is at stake here...which casts into question all of its other business operations, now and in the past, as a Third Party Assurance entity. The ramifications are huge.
BUT, this is just the business aspect of the equation. It gets even more compelling when you consider the potential political and legal aspects of Third Party Assurance in everything from ISO9000, ISO9001, SA 8000, ISO26000 (Social Responsibility, our subject) et. al.
A very interesting study entitled "Assurance Services as a Substitute for Law in Global Commerce" by M. Blair and C. Williams, professors of law at Vanderbilt and the University of Illinois respectively, mentions RINA by name in exploring the following issues:
The study points out the huge growth of the Third Party Assurance market which RINA dominates (as shown in their 2007 Annual Report above):
It's clear, therefore, that the demand for these standards by private corporations doing business internationally provides significant power to privately-held Third Party Assurance companies as the intermediaries in this enforcement relationship. And there are clear worries over the far-reaching affects this power can have:
To me, the report's China case-study was the most interesting - and most applicable here:
So, the implication of this study is that not only are Third Party Assurance companies benefiting from a rapidly growing market (driven by large global corporations), but as "financial gatekeepers" these companies are in a position of power that is raising huge questions of not only ethics and law, but sovereignty itself!
This is why Mr. King's allegations are such a big deal. This is not simply a localized matter of "greasing the wheels". The huge scope and position of RINA (and the power inherent in Third Party Assurance itself) makes the alleged problem much, much bigger.
I'm still working on researching specific facts on this through some "back channels". And I'm still approaching RINA via the "front channels". So the above information is just a start for the "backdrop" of the significance of this alleged bribery.
Perhaps indeed this is simply a case of 1 or 2 "bad apples" who've already been dealt with. But, we've already seen how that argument doesn't really apply to RINA. At the very least, RINA needs to respond to Mr. King's allegations by following the protocol of the Bribery Act it "enforces", and has posted on its own website:
Yes, it seems to me to be quite a big deal. And with 5000+ views of this thread in only 2 weeks - it appears I'm not alone.
Let's take a deeper look at where RINA's assurances on such matters appear (i.e. - its reach and scope). Consider the official report in 2004 from the OECD Working Group: "Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention - REPORT ON ITALY". Granted, this initiative dealt mostly with the bribery of public officials, but the point of the initiative was to highlight the steps Italian business and government had taken to that point to quash such unethical behavior (in other words, to put a stop to the prevalent "just greasing the wheels" ethos) - as it expanded business opportunities across Europe. Look who's mentioned as the assurance entity in this initiative:
Verification and certification of those adopting this model? Hmm. But, you may ask, is this really a significant part of their business - or are we just focusing on the "mole hill"?
As of 2007, the Social Accountability portion of RINA's business was the fastest growing. From RINA's 2007 Annual Report:
Are you beginning to see how this allegation is opening a pretty substantial can of worms for RINA? Apart from the direct threat to one of its most lucrative business areas, RINA's global reputation, it's very brand, is at stake here...which casts into question all of its other business operations, now and in the past, as a Third Party Assurance entity. The ramifications are huge.
BUT, this is just the business aspect of the equation. It gets even more compelling when you consider the potential political and legal aspects of Third Party Assurance in everything from ISO9000, ISO9001, SA 8000, ISO26000 (Social Responsibility, our subject) et. al.
A very interesting study entitled "Assurance Services as a Substitute for Law in Global Commerce" by M. Blair and C. Williams, professors of law at Vanderbilt and the University of Illinois respectively, mentions RINA by name in exploring the following issues:
The study points out the huge growth of the Third Party Assurance market which RINA dominates (as shown in their 2007 Annual Report above):
It's clear, therefore, that the demand for these standards by private corporations doing business internationally provides significant power to privately-held Third Party Assurance companies as the intermediaries in this enforcement relationship. And there are clear worries over the far-reaching affects this power can have:
To me, the report's China case-study was the most interesting - and most applicable here:
So, the implication of this study is that not only are Third Party Assurance companies benefiting from a rapidly growing market (driven by large global corporations), but as "financial gatekeepers" these companies are in a position of power that is raising huge questions of not only ethics and law, but sovereignty itself!
This is why Mr. King's allegations are such a big deal. This is not simply a localized matter of "greasing the wheels". The huge scope and position of RINA (and the power inherent in Third Party Assurance itself) makes the alleged problem much, much bigger.
I'm still working on researching specific facts on this through some "back channels". And I'm still approaching RINA via the "front channels". So the above information is just a start for the "backdrop" of the significance of this alleged bribery.
Perhaps indeed this is simply a case of 1 or 2 "bad apples" who've already been dealt with. But, we've already seen how that argument doesn't really apply to RINA. At the very least, RINA needs to respond to Mr. King's allegations by following the protocol of the Bribery Act it "enforces", and has posted on its own website:
Yes, it seems to me to be quite a big deal. And with 5000+ views of this thread in only 2 weeks - it appears I'm not alone.
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I certainly didn't appreciate the scale and importance of Rina when this allegation/revelation came out.
I find this post kind of interesting:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3269687&postcount=982
If YBW feel confident they can host the Rina allegation/revelation it suggests they think it's true and/or they haven't heard for Rina lawyers yet. Which is a billion miles from conclusive verification of the story but even so...
Morven
New member
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Having worked in the offshore oil industry and seen quite how toothless the HSE was in the 90's I always wondered who certifies these classification societies?
Having worked in the offshore oil industry and seen quite how toothless the HSE was in the 90's I always wondered who certifies these classification societies?
macd
Active member
Ultimately, I suppose we do. A big ask, but perhaps a lesser one since th'interweb came along.
smackdaddy
New member
Very good question.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Let's hope so. Certainly any future journalist researching Rina or Rocna can get to Grant through this thread. (...and future research could clear both companies, just as easily as it could show them in the wrong.)
smackdaddy
New member
It doesn't take much digging. This thread is now on the first page of Google with a "Registro Italiano Navale" search.
Hopefully, I'll hear back from RINA soon. We'll see.
In the mean time, the NZ courts don't seem to have any documentation on Grant's/Bambury's "theft" case. I saw where he posted this...
...but I find it strange that if it "went to court" (even with no trial) that there would be no documentation of the case at all (according to my contact at the Ministry of Justice).
Hopefully Grant can shed some more light on this case and the bribery stuff with his documentation. It's definitely murky.
Hopefully, I'll hear back from RINA soon. We'll see.
In the mean time, the NZ courts don't seem to have any documentation on Grant's/Bambury's "theft" case. I saw where he posted this...
...but I find it strange that if it "went to court" (even with no trial) that there would be no documentation of the case at all (according to my contact at the Ministry of Justice).
Hopefully Grant can shed some more light on this case and the bribery stuff with his documentation. It's definitely murky.
GrantKing
New member
I stated there was no public release of information. It can be found within the court system if you have the level of access required to search court files.
Nothing strange about it at all, except for the silence surrounding any comment from Bambury who was so forward in announcing it on the forums earlier.