toad_oftoadhall
New member
I think Rina etc accepting $5000 'tips' from people they are offering certification to is every bit as bad as if they accepted a $5000 'bribe'.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
I think Rina etc accepting $5000 'tips' from people they are offering certification to is every bit as bad as if they accepted a $5000 'bribe'.
smackdaddy
New member
You're going down a road with this logic that creates the "rock-and-hard-place" I was talking about.
Bambury's $5K went somewhere. By his admission above, Grant was the one that last had it in hand with clear instructions on what to do with it. And he was just cleared in court of allegedly stealing it...which means it apparently never made it back to Bambury.
So from what you read in his post, if he didn't keep it for himself, who did Grant give Bambury's money to?
This is really the critical question, for which Grant's already strongly implied an answer. It's hard for me to see a whole lot of other answers that will make Grant look good in all this.
I look forward to Grant finally clearing this up. If he didn't bribe RINA officials, that's a very easy thing to make clear. Because he's really making RINA look bad with what's been insinuated thus far.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
If the outcome of this is that it's normal for money to be spent "legitimately" 'changing the minds' of certification bodies then that will still be a massive news story!
What the hell is the point in buying a life jacket with a CE mark if someone paid $5000 to the person who was assesing it!
So if Rina turn out to be corrupt that's an interesting story. If it's likely money has been used to "change the mind" of large numbers of people assessing goods to be imported into the uk then I'd say that would be in all the national UK papers overnight.
No doubt Grant will be along to clarify.
Incidently, if you work for a US company and you are "Spending $5k on wine and dine to be "polite in China." you're committing a criminal offence, even if you're in China when you do it. So there's a lot of people who don't play these games abroad. Like most manufacturing firms, we do a lot of biz in China I've never paid anyone a cent, and I've never heard of anyone I've worked with doing so either. (In fact we don't have any bribe/tip paying mechanism, if I needed to I don't know how I would, I certainly aint paying $5000 out of my own pocket!) We manage ok.
Neeves
Well-known member
There appears to be a developing witch hunt against RINA for which there is no supportive evidence, to date. If they had one rogue employee they would be no different to a whole range of 'Western' institutions, banks, publishers etc. There is no suggestion in fact monies were paid to RINA - the only vague inference I can find, in the thread, is reference to an individual. There is no evidence that, were a bribe paid, and that has not been confirmed, it made any difference at all to the certifcation process nor to the eventual certifcate issued.
There seems very little condemnation of the organisation and the management who wished to act corruptly. The intent seems to have been one of obtaining a certificate corruptly - and that certificate was to be used to support their marketing effort - simplistically, to make their product more acceptable to us, the customers.
There seems very little condemnation of the organisation and the management who wished to act corruptly. The intent seems to have been one of obtaining a certificate corruptly - and that certificate was to be used to support their marketing effort - simplistically, to make their product more acceptable to us, the customers.
misterg
Active member
It happens - and I'm not talking about 'wining & dining', either. (Large, respectable UK PLC within last 10 years). Obviously the 'mechanism' isn't part of the normal expenses claims, accountancy, etc.
Andy
toad_oftoadhall
New member
...but yeah, in spite of my reply to your post, I'm not for one second suggesting that we actually know the facts.
None the less, Grant's got some history of telling the truth WRT Rocna as far as I can see. (Mind you I haven't done an exhaustive study!)
evm1024
New member
Please cite the US code
I assume that you are talking about the FCPA laws... Which do in some cases apply to private companies payments to Officials for foreign Governments (etc). To which there are exceptions.... See below.
Nothing I would like to tackle without a lawyer advising me. Indeed, any and all payments by Grant may have been according to "Written Chinese Law".
I am sure that Grant will release more information as time passes. He has shown a restraint and sense of timing that would be good for us all to aspire to.
Regards
ps hopefully there are no shills, plants or stooges here.
----------------------------
"Exceptions and Affirmative Defenses
There are one exception and two affirmative defenses to an Antibribery violation.
The one exception is if the payment to a foreign official is to expedite or secure the performance of a routine governmental action. The so-called “facilitating” payment or “grease” payment exception has limited application, and generally only applies to non-discretionary actions by a foreign official such as processing government paperwork, providing routine government services (i.e., police protection, mail pick-up) and actions of a similar nature. Routine governmental action does not include a decision by a foreign official to award business to, or to continue business with, a company.
The two affirmative defenses to an Antibribery violation (which a company must prove) are those instances in which the payment to a foreign official is: (i) lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign country; or (ii) a reasonable and bona fide expenditure directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services or the execution or performance of a contract."
I assume that you are talking about the FCPA laws... Which do in some cases apply to private companies payments to Officials for foreign Governments (etc). To which there are exceptions.... See below.
Nothing I would like to tackle without a lawyer advising me. Indeed, any and all payments by Grant may have been according to "Written Chinese Law".
I am sure that Grant will release more information as time passes. He has shown a restraint and sense of timing that would be good for us all to aspire to.
Regards
ps hopefully there are no shills, plants or stooges here.
----------------------------
"Exceptions and Affirmative Defenses
There are one exception and two affirmative defenses to an Antibribery violation.
The one exception is if the payment to a foreign official is to expedite or secure the performance of a routine governmental action. The so-called “facilitating” payment or “grease” payment exception has limited application, and generally only applies to non-discretionary actions by a foreign official such as processing government paperwork, providing routine government services (i.e., police protection, mail pick-up) and actions of a similar nature. Routine governmental action does not include a decision by a foreign official to award business to, or to continue business with, a company.
The two affirmative defenses to an Antibribery violation (which a company must prove) are those instances in which the payment to a foreign official is: (i) lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign country; or (ii) a reasonable and bona fide expenditure directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services or the execution or performance of a contract."
DaiB
Member
Bribe
If anyone thinks you could bribe RINA with 5kusd then I think you are misguided. It's like saying you could bribe Lloyds with 5kusd. However you could perhaps "bribe" one of their employees which in my opinion is totally different. In China you could easily spend 5kusd on a good night out, posh meal followed by a "kareoke" type night club with private room and ladies attending. Some may say this is a bribe, to others it is "normal" client entertainment as done daily out east, it would get you remembered, given fast track treatment, priority with your buisness but not much more. You may define this as bribery in UK but it's defined as buisness out east!!
If anyone thinks you could bribe RINA with 5kusd then I think you are misguided. It's like saying you could bribe Lloyds with 5kusd. However you could perhaps "bribe" one of their employees which in my opinion is totally different. In China you could easily spend 5kusd on a good night out, posh meal followed by a "kareoke" type night club with private room and ladies attending. Some may say this is a bribe, to others it is "normal" client entertainment as done daily out east, it would get you remembered, given fast track treatment, priority with your buisness but not much more. You may define this as bribery in UK but it's defined as buisness out east!!
evm1024
New member
+1
evm1024
New member
I agree with you fully. Going back and reading Grants post I see that he said (a)what Bambury wanted him to do and that (b) Bambury was pleased with the results. There was nothing about what Grant in fact did.
Stand by same channel.....(Over to Grant)
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I can't cite the law, sorry, it may not even exist.
My source was Ms Toad who has just started work for a US firm. She had to do a day of corruption training. There's plenty of scope for my repeating of her memory of her training to be wrong!
evm1024
New member
Fair enough. It is clearly against the law to wine and dine Government employees and those who are doing work for the Government. As a onetime Federal contractor I could not accept even a cup of coffee.
Wining and Dining prospective customers is normal outside of the Government service.
This is not what Bambury directed Grant to do. What Grant did is unknown.
Regards!
Last edited:
FishyInverness
New member
+1 and agree with everyone else that has said the same.
To say that a bribe was definitely paid as requested is jumping to a conclusion given limited facts, looking at the facts in Grant's post you could also assume that the following scenario happened (which is what I would have done if put in that very difficult position by an employer) Incidentally, i'm not saying either happened, this is a "could have happened" hypothesis just to try and open minds a bit:
1. SB hands 5k to GK, and gives implicit instruction to pay bribes to RINA, backed up by paperwork where the intention to bribe is clearly outlined.
2. GK, realising the implications of directly applying a literal bribe, uses the 5k to entertain the contacts, as expenses.
3. On return the contacts give very positive and happy noises to SB about the meeting, having had a very pleasant time. SB assumes this means this means his instructions were carried out.
4. SB realises that full certification was not carried out and assumes this means GK has stolen the 5k rather than use it for it's intended purpose. Possibly at this point GK reveals to SB that the funds were used as entertainment expenses, SB doesn't believe this explanation.
5. During the unpleasant GK/Holdfast seperation SB decides to take action against GK, saying that the 5k given to GK as "business expenses" was stolen. GK provides evidence that the money was intended as a bribe, was used as business expenses anyway and so the case collapses.
....possibly....
Last edited:
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
An alternative 5 to the suppositions above.
5. Given that SB has been playing fast and loose with the material specs for the product; and that he knows GK knows this, is unhappy about it and is a potential whistle-blower; SB initiates fairly hopeless* litigation simply to keep the matter sub-judice for as long as possible, and keep GK from fully spilling the beans.
*on the limited facts we know, it's difficult to imagine legal counsel advising SB to litigate in the hope of winning, especially when - relatively - penny numbers were all that were in play.
5. Given that SB has been playing fast and loose with the material specs for the product; and that he knows GK knows this, is unhappy about it and is a potential whistle-blower; SB initiates fairly hopeless* litigation simply to keep the matter sub-judice for as long as possible, and keep GK from fully spilling the beans.
*on the limited facts we know, it's difficult to imagine legal counsel advising SB to litigate in the hope of winning, especially when - relatively - penny numbers were all that were in play.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
+1 and agree with everyone else that has said the same.
To say that a bribe was definitely paid as requested is jumping to a conclusion given limited facts, looking at the facts in Grant's post you could also assume that the following scenario happened (which is what I would have done if put in that very difficult position by an employer) Incidentally, i'm not saying either happened, this is a "could have happened" hypothesis just to try and open minds a bit:
1. SB hands 5k to GK, and gives implicit instruction to pay bribes to RINA, backed up by paperwork where the intention to bribe is clearly outlined.
2. GK, realising the implications of directly applying a literal bribe, uses the 5k to entertain the contacts, as expenses.
3. On return the contacts give very positive and happy noises to SB about the meeting, having had a very pleasant time. SB assumes this means this means his instructions were carried out.
4. SB realises that full certification was not carried out and assumes this means GK has stolen the 5k rather than use it for it's intended purpose. Possibly at this point GK reveals to SB that the funds were used as entertainment expenses, SB doesn't believe this explanation.
5. During the unpleasant GK/Holdfast seperation SB decides to take action against GK, saying that the 5k given to GK as "business expenses" was stolen. GK provides evidence that the money was intended as a bribe, was used as business expenses anyway and so the case collapses.
....possibly....
We'll just have to be patient and see what Grant says.
Whatever Grant says, it seems undisputed that there are people in the marine industry who have reason to think that a $5000 payment will help them get Rina creditation.
Unless these people are delusional, that is pretty stark for Rina, and any firm selling products with Rina certification.
Neeves
Well-known member
Just because Rocna might have thought money was the answer there is no evidence AT ALL that Rocna's thoughts had any basis in reality.
Rocna thought it could get away with sacking Grant. Rocna thought it could have Grant charged with criminal behaviour, Rocna thought it could use 420 steel and no-one would notice. Rocna thought it could claim RINA certification, when it did not exist. When Certification did exist it only applied to anchors of 55kg and over.
So far the only people who now believe anything the Rocna team says is CMP.
I think prior to damning RINA we should wait to see how this unravels.
Rocna thought it could get away with sacking Grant. Rocna thought it could have Grant charged with criminal behaviour, Rocna thought it could use 420 steel and no-one would notice. Rocna thought it could claim RINA certification, when it did not exist. When Certification did exist it only applied to anchors of 55kg and over.
So far the only people who now believe anything the Rocna team says is CMP.
I think prior to damning RINA we should wait to see how this unravels.
GrantKing
New member
oiling the wheels
Ok Guys let me say this once and as clearly as possible:
This is not supposed to be an indictment of Rina as an organisation.
The so called "oiling of the wheels" is and has always been a critical part of doing business in China.
The hospitality extended to foreigners is wonderful and enticing wherever you go and it would be easy to become entranced by your "new friends" and their wealth.
During the certification process there were many hurdles, endless meetings and discussions, rewriting of the papers and specs and resubmission of materials etc for testing.
This had already been going on for over a year before I first went to Shanghai with no progress and Bambury champing at the bit to release notification of full certification.
He also had no idea what he had applied for or the ramifications of the full testing program and certification process. When questioned about it all I received from him was the customary stunned mullet stare and the reply " I dont know, you sort it out".
After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.
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.
This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.
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, some of you can dissect my words or terminology further and try to find another meaning if you like but facts are facts and I have revealed them, thus exposing myself to retaliation and consequenses as a result.
I cant be much clearer than that.
Ok Guys let me say this once and as clearly as possible:
This is not supposed to be an indictment of Rina as an organisation.
The so called "oiling of the wheels" is and has always been a critical part of doing business in China.
The hospitality extended to foreigners is wonderful and enticing wherever you go and it would be easy to become entranced by your "new friends" and their wealth.
During the certification process there were many hurdles, endless meetings and discussions, rewriting of the papers and specs and resubmission of materials etc for testing.
This had already been going on for over a year before I first went to Shanghai with no progress and Bambury champing at the bit to release notification of full certification.
He also had no idea what he had applied for or the ramifications of the full testing program and certification process. When questioned about it all I received from him was the customary stunned mullet stare and the reply " I dont know, you sort it out".
After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.
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.
This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.
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, some of you can dissect my words or terminology further and try to find another meaning if you like but facts are facts and I have revealed them, thus exposing myself to retaliation and consequenses as a result.
I cant be much clearer than that.
idpnd
Member
Yep, sounds like an Italian company operating in China
maxi77
Active member
Go back to Gran't post and read it again, the money was for both RINA and the manufacturer. We do not know the split. In many places it is not uncommon for there to be a need for cash payments off the books to get documentation out this year not next as I said such payments can cover a large range of activities and I suspect even in China 5000 is not enough to put your job on the line for.
bigwow
Well-known member
Nowt as queer as folks, manager at the store where my daughter is also a manager put his job on the line, and lost it, for a £10 gift voucher!