BAE : qui n’a pas son enquête?

BAE devient une chronique et son cas suscite un phénomène qui commence à ressembler à la curée. Après l’ouverture de l’enquête sur BAE par le DoJ, c’est le Serious Fraud Office (SFO) de Londres qui envisage de rouvrir sa propre enquête. Le Financial Times annonce aujourd’hui qu’il s’agit d’une possibilité actuellement envisagée par le directeur du SFO. La condition serait que la cause de l’arrêt de l’enquête ordonné en décembre 2006 (sécurité nationale) disparaisse… Il faut noter que le directeur du SFO expose cette possibilité alors que les deux principaux instigateurs de la décision de décembre 2006 ont quitté le gouvernement (démission) : Tony Blair et son ministre Goldsmith.

Le FT écrit : «The Serious Fraud Office director has raised the possibility that Britain would examine whether to reopen an investigation into alleged corruption in a giant Saudi Arabian arms deal, if the national security concerns around it disappeared.

»Robert Wardle told MPs yesterday he was “not ruling anything out” about the future of the case, although he stressed there would still be significant obstacles to further investigation even if the security problems no longer existed.

Sur le même front de la chronique BAE, on notera :

• La SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) qui est l’organe de surveillance des opérations boursières aux USA, a ouvert une enquête sur BAE parallèle à celle du DoJ. La SEC recherche de possibles manipulations de comptabilité liées au cas BAE. La coopération entre la SEC et le DoJ dans ce genre d’affaire est une pratique courante. Dans certains cas, il est arrivé que la SEC porte des affaires en justice alors que le DoJ s’abstenait.

• Il y a aussi le cas autrichien… Dans un commentaire du 27 juin, Lyndon LaRouche écrit : «BAE also draws criticism in Austria over the terms of an air fighter contract with the defense ministry there. This concerns the Eurofighter jet, produced by a consortium in which BAE holds a strong share, along with the EADS and Finmeccaica as other partners. Especially among the Austrian Social Democrats, there is considerable uproar about the blackmail by BAE/EADS in retaliation for the SPOE (Austrian Social Democrats)-led government's decision to only buy 15 or 14 of the 24 Eurofighter jets on which the former, conservative government signed a contract. BAE told Austria that opting out of the contract, implies the loss of military contracts for Austria's industry, because these contracts were part of the original deal. It cannot be ruled out that the case leads to an investigation by the Austrian parliament, which would then be the fourth parliament in Europe to investigate BAE's doings, following Sweden, Czechia and Hungary.»

• Fidèle à sa réputation (pro-business mais nécessité de respect des règles du jeu et, surtout, ne pas se faire prendre), le Financial Times publie le 27 juin un éditorial où il approuve entièrement l’ouverture de l’enquête du DoJ : «Allegations of bribery should be investigated; the law is the law. There are many in Saudi Arabia who want more transparency and the Saudis were never likely to cut off co-operation on national security matters. Britain might lose future arms sales if wrongdoing is exposed, but ignoring the law for the sake of economic expediency is an action of the mercenary and the cynical.

»Those in the Saudi government who put pressure on Britain to abandon the probe have served their country poorly. They have turned a UK investigation into a US inquiry and thrust Al-Yamamah into the international spotlight.

»The British government has been pusillanimous and the DoJ has exposed it. But there is a chance of redemption: the success and scope of the US inquiry will depend, in part, on how far Britain’s Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence co-operate. Gordon Brown, Britain’s new prime minister, should order that co-operation and let any repercussions fall where they may.»

Mis en ligne le 28 juin 2007 à 08H44