RE: ?????23 May 2021 22:17
Galveston, i've read the full SC Appeal judgment. I'll keep it short, SFO were after KBR (UK) a subsidiary of KBR(US-the Mother company) They wanted to compel documents from US company to pursue UK based subsidiary. Hence court contest. How does this relate to Lufkin/PFC? Well, maybe not at all. However i believe Lufkin's lawyers will be arguing in the light of KBR that PFC is a non UK company (Jersey Registered so not accountable to UK Parliament). Yes, they are active in the UK but their main activities are overseas. The alleged bribery stuff has all gone on with Gulf state companies. The lawyers will say that because of this the SFO had no legitimacy in pursuing him in the first place. Making his admissions of guilt irrelevant as the prosecutions themselves were illegal. All will of course come out in due course but lets assume i'm completely wrong & on 21st June he is pronounced guilty & due to be sentenced. Well, so what? he's still an ex employye who had his hands in the till. Still no other charges against PFC. Where does it go from there? In my view in that instance i can only see 2 alternatives: 1) Charge other employees; 2) DPA arrangement with PFC. We wait & see!