Oh no doubt they knew. The point of my somewhat pedantic correction was that somebody can't claim a defence by saying they were mislead as to the true reason of the payments ie. a reasonable person ought to have known therefore they are still guilty. Meaning that in a more general sense not specifically to do with this case. Not doubting for a moment these guys knew exactly what they were doing and why.
Hey guys. I've been thinking about your points and I think it comes down to 'Who coerced who?' If, as I have been assuming (perhaps wrongly), the buyer coerced the RBA guys into providing some sort of bribe then I think they are blameless. Why? Because all the power over the transaction rests with the buyer (i.e. the government appointed bureaucrats). The buyer is setting the terms of the transaction and the sellers are competing amongst themselves to meet the terms. If the terms involve a 'facilitation payment' then so be it and what they do is potentially a sackable offence by their employer but not a criminal one (and certainly not a criminal one in a different country). If the RBA guys were attempting to subvert the system themselves by actively encouraging/coercing the buyer to abuse their delegated power then maybe I agree with you (but I'm still not completely sure and think on it some more). Is that coherent (it's late)?
I can understand the point you are trying to make but what if the coercion payment required was for the RBA subsidiary to perform a "hit" on some official in the country and they did it. Would that be OK as they were coerced? "Not my fault your honour - they made me do it so I could get paids lots of money". Not sure a judge/jury would be too sympathetic. Simply if someone tries to coerce you into bribing them you have two choices - agree and become part of a criminal offence. Decline and/or report to authorities. It is criminal as while you may have been "coerced" you still stand to benefit from criminal activity you are actively although maybe not necessarily willingly participating in. I've no doubt if the bribes were not paid then the business would have gone to someone else. Not good for the individual business but I would never want to profit from such activities.
You're putting a good case. Now I'm confused about the sophistication of the corruption. Taking a few obvious ones (I'm not in the business so I don't the non-obvious ones): - money in an envelope (very crude) - payment into wife's/children's trust accout - employment of a "sub-contractor" (which happens to be 100% owned by the public official) - employment of a "sub-contractor" whose ownership is less clear but who's remuneration is 100% linked to success of the contract - having a silent equity owner who you have to have in order to undertake certain business ventures. - etc etc. If you know the real purpose of all of these payments, are you saying ALL should be treated as a crime? Is it just those that are obviously "obvious"?
They, the RBA, allocated money, engaged agents and sought out people to bribe for the purpose of receiving money printing contracts. In this, it was the RBA that was the factor forcing corruption. They knowingly and with intent sought to corrupt officials and people of influence over awarding money printing contracts in their favour. That's it. It's no more difficult that that. That they occupy the position of highest trust and responsibility in this country, the management of our money supply and interest rates, demands that they be above reproach. However, they clearly aren't and this corruption goes right to the top of the organisation. You aren't talking about a private company "going along to get along" with the backhanded cultural processes of backwater countries. We are talking about official corruption, using public money, by people that are abusing their position of trust and power.
Well the issue has been dragging on for some time and I think The Age newspaper needs to be applauded for its persistence in investigating this corruption and holding the RBA to account. It puts some faith back in to reporting and journalism. Of course, this story has depleted any faith that the RBA and its Governors may have enjoyed with thinking people. Unfortunately, the majority of the populous are too medicated, irresponsible or financially stressed to be thinking critically and so will not appreciate what the hell this means. Ironically, through their monetary and credit policies, the RBA is largely responsible for the broad financial stress that keeps the population too indebted and busy to pay attention to or question their antics. Imagine, it's the same guys that print money for bribing people that are responsible for the volume, value and distribution of our national currency. You just cannot have corrupt people in these positions and expect to maintain the faith of a free and aware community. Unfortunately, we are not aware and thanks to the Attorney Generals and their totalitarian legislations to appease the US security nut jobs, we are no longer free.
100% agree. The Reserve Bank is a toxic, irrelevant institution. You've probably read that nowadays more and more of the people on the board/senior roles have gone through the same career progression through our internal bureaucracy and hence they are in danger of them turning (even more) into a bunch of incompetent out of touch technocrats serving the interests of their cronies.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/still-in-the-dark-with-governor-on-the-defensive-20120824-24rr7.html Looking after their own I see: After just several minutes of questioning by Smith, Mr Stevens was thrown a Dorothy Dixer that would make any backbencher proud. Committee chair and Labor MP Julie Owens clumsily tried to give Mr Stevens an out by stating that his past claim that the RBA knew nothing about corruption prior to 2009 had been misrepresented. Ms Owens claimed that because the RBA corruption briefings in 2007 dealt with Note Printing Australia and not Securency - and because Mr Stevens was responding to questions about Securency when claiming the RBA knew nothing - he was in the clear. But Mr Hood's 2007 briefings to the RBA dealt with NPA and Securency. His memo clearly stated that both firms were using a potentially corrupt Malaysian middleman.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/deals-with-saddam-hussein-20130929-2umja.html Wouldn't it be fantastic if this whole sordid episode brought down the entire RBA? Ah, wishful thinking I know but it is nice to dream!
Because the central bank is an unnecessary, yet poisonous institution at the heart of our screwed up monetary system.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ Four Corners tonight. 8.30pm Cover Up Monday 30 September 2013 The Reserve Bank of Australia is meant to maintain stability in the nation's financial sector. It is supposed to be above reproach in its behaviour. But is it? Why did bank-appointed officials and employees break sanctions in Iraq and cosy up to Saddam Hussein through a "front man"? Why did a former Deputy Governor and other directors hand-picked by the Reserve Bank to safeguard its subsidiary companies from corruption, end up over a decade overseeing some of the most corruption-prone business practices possible? Why did they allow millions of dollars to be wired to third parties in foreign countries, including an arms dealer, in order to win banknote contracts in deals police now allege involved bribery and corruption? Next week on Four Corners two whistleblowers-turned star police witnesses from RBA companies, Note Printing Australia and Securency, reveal for the first time how they discovered bribes were allegedly being paid... and how the most senior figures in Australia's worst corporate corruption scandal got away with allegedly egregious governance failures. "That someone can get away with it so blatantly, a board, and a chairman... you know it, it's not right." Whistleblower For the past four years the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, has maintained that neither he nor officials knew about the alleged payments before 2009. We find out exactly who knew what and when. Until now the Federal Police and the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), have been unwilling to investigate board members of the Reserve Bank companies, despite evidence that some of them allegedly failed in their duties, allowing corruption to flourish. "This is the worst corruption scandal in our history, not because of the amount of money that's been involved, but because the most respected institutions of our country have failed to discharge their responsibilities to the public." Dr David Chaikin, University of Sydney Business School COVER UP, reported by Nick McKenzie in a joint Four Corners /Fairfax Media investigation and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 30th September at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 1st October at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners
To be honest I have no strong thoughts on the matter either way. That stated, don't you think that a country needs a financial clearing mechanism to deal outside it's borders that is not a private bank ie CBA, Westpac, ANZ, NAB etc? This of course assumes that the RBA is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia 1901, and not a pseudo private institution. What would be the alternative, if the RBA or similar were to be made redundant, or replaced?
Expect the corrupt officials involved to be roundly flogged (with a feather) and get thrown from a plane (with an obscene golden parachute). :/
There's no need for a Government entity to be a lender of last resort. Just like private reinsurers exist to help individual insurance companies hedge against short term catastrophic events so too can banks create a private central bank to insure them against counterparty risk etc. Individuals/companies have traded internationally through a range of private international clearing houses so again, there's no need for a Government owned clearing house. Individual lenders and investors have (and to a significant extent still do) set tailored interest rates to individuals borrowers based on a suite of lending criteria completely separate to a central bank, so again, there's no need for a Government owned central bank having this function either. So in essence they are simply unnecessary. In practice, because of the presence of the various legal tender and banking laws, they are also a poisonous influence at the heart of our economy.
