Glencore Fines and Settlements Expose Corruption and Anonymity

Glencore's fines and settlements have revealed a pattern of corruption and anonymity within the company. Glencore paid a $1.1 billion fine in 2017 to settle charges of bribery and corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In 2012, Glencore paid $45 million to settle charges of violating US sanctions on Iran. The company had traded oil with Iran through a series of complex transactions.

Glencore's use of shell companies and anonymous accounts has allowed it to conceal its activities and avoid detection.

Glencore has agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle charges of bribery and price-fixing.

The settlement followed months of negotiations between the company and prosecutors in the United States, Britain, and Brazil over Glencore's operations in several countries dating back to 2018.

Two units of Glencore admitted guilt and the company agreed to pay two separate penalties - $700 million to resolve the bribery investigation and $485 million in connection with manipulating oil prices at two of the country's busiest ports.

The company has set aside $1.5 billion in reserves to pay for fines and clawbacks that might result from international investigations.

Two midlevel traders have pleaded guilty, one for conspiring to manipulate a fuel-oil benchmark, the other for bribing officials in Nigeria for a favorable contract.

Glencore's current leadership has sought to distance themselves from the activities of executives four years ago, listing a set of internal controls put into place to ensure the company complies with the law.

Glencore has paid almost $1.3 billion in financial penalties globally, but those most harmed by its corruption have not been properly compensated.

Nigeria was denied permission to intervene in the UK criminal proceedings to claim status as a victim and seek compensation.

The US has also fallen short by leaving it up to individual victims to bring their own claims against Glencore, with a US court awarding $30 million in restitution to the founders of Crusader Health, but not to the Congolese employees who lost their jobs.

Backroom deals between powerful multinational companies and governments can be negotiated without any public scrutiny, making it difficult to hold them accountable for their actions.

Glencore, a company convicted of corrupting public officials, has negotiated a settlement agreement with Nigeria, but the terms of the deal have not been made public.

Affected communities are not represented in this process, and without transparency, it's hard to ensure that the funds are used to redress the harms caused by Glencore's corruption.

We've called for the settlement agreement to be published immediately to ensure transparency about its terms, and for the Nigerian government to put in place strong safeguards for the transparent and accountable use of funds.

The prosecution of those people who allegedly gave their backing to Glencore's bribery is essential for ensuring effective deterrence and real accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

Multinational companies like Glencore, who made record profits of $34 billion in the year of its conviction, can too easily write off big fines as the cost of doing business.

Accountability demands full transparency about those involved, including the 17 individuals and three companies who were anonymised during Glencore's sentencing.

Given the scale and seriousness of Glencore's corruption, it's time to let the light into the courtroom so that the public can properly scrutinise how our justice system is tackling corporate wrongdoing.

Real accountability requires total transparency, and it's only through transparency that we can ensure that justice is served and that corporate wrongdoing is truly held to account.

Glencore became the first company to be convicted of substantive bribery offences under section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010, with its directors or senior employees approving the criminality.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been investigating Glencore's corporate criminality, but the individuals behind it have remained unnamed. This anonymisation has made serious inroads into the principle of open justice, which requires court proceedings to be transparent.

The SFO's case summary featured an anonymised cast of characters, whose identities have remained under wraps while the agency continues its investigation. The identities of these individuals are crucial in understanding the extent of Glencore's bribery scheme.

Glencore's former high-ranking head of oil, Alex Beard, is no longer anonymous. He's been charged with corruption in relation to the awarding of oil contracts in Cameroon, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast from 2007 to 2014.

David Perez, another former employee, was also charged with conspiring to make corrupt payments in Cameroon and the Ivory Coast. He's facing a hearing at Southwark Crown Court on October 8.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been committed to exposing corruption and holding those responsible accountable. Nick Ephgrave, the SFO's director, stated that bribery damages financial markets and causes lasting harm to communities.

Two midlevel traders from Glencore have already pleaded guilty to their roles in the company's bribery and price-fixing scheme. One was involved in manipulating a fuel-oil benchmark, while the other bribed officials in Nigeria for a favorable contract.

Glencore's current leadership is trying to distance themselves from the past actions of their executives. The company has implemented internal controls to prevent similar misconduct in the future.

The charges against Glencore's former employees are the latest in a long line of prosecutions and penalties against the company and its workers.

In the UK, the individuals behind Glencore's corporate criminality remain unnamed. The SFO's case summary featured an anonymised cast of characters, keeping their identities under wraps.

This anonymisation made serious inroads into the principle of open justice. The principle requires court proceedings to be transparent to enable the public to understand how the justice system works.

The Glencore case was the first company to be convicted of substantive bribery offences under section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010. The company itself is guilty of bribery because its directors or senior employees approved the criminality.

The identities of the individuals involved are crucial in this case.

Glencore has been involved in lucrative market manipulation, with the company's employees submitting fake offers to lower the price of oil products between 2011 and 2019.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Department of Justice were able to rely on the confessions of a former Glencore trader to conclude their investigation.

Glencore has to pay over a billion US dollars in penalties, a significant amount that highlights the severity of their actions.

The DoJ will monitor Glencore's internal legal department and risk management for three years through the Compliance Monitor, a system typically used to ensure companies comply with regulations.

Market manipulation can be a lucrative business, but it's not without consequences. Between 2011 and 2019, Glencore manipulated price assessments for oil products published by S&P Global Platts.

The investigation by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the DoJ found that Glencore employees submitted offers with the sole purpose of lowering the valuation, and thus the price of the oil products purchased by Glencore.

This behavior is a clear example of market manipulation, and it's not the only one.

High penalties abroad are a harsh reality for companies that engage in market manipulation. Glencore, a Swiss commodity trading company, has to pay over a billion US dollars in penalties.

This is not a one-time payment, but rather a significant financial burden that will continue to impact the company's finances. The DoJ will monitor Glencore's internal legal department and risk management for three years.

This external supervision is a rare occurrence for a Swiss company, and it's a testament to the severity of Glencore's actions. The Compliance Monitor will report regularly to the US judicial authorities, ensuring that Glencore adheres to the requirements set forth by the DoJ.

Glencore faces huge reputational risk as a major player in the Swiss commodity hub.

The company's reputation has been tainted by the Federal Prosecutor's Office punishing Geneva oil dealer Gunvor in 2019 for bribery in the Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast.

Glencore's own involvement in bribery allegations is not mentioned in the article section, so we can't speculate about its reputation in this regard.

However, the fact that Vitol, another company based in Geneva, agreed a penalty with the US judicial system in 2020 for its guilty conduct in the bribery of foreign public officials in Brazil, Ecuador, and Mexico, does not directly impact Glencore's reputation.

For Switzerland, all these proceedings and judgments for corruption in international commodity trade represent major reputational damage.

Public Eye has long called for effective measures to mitigate the risks of illicit financial flows in this sector.

It's imperative for Switzerland to introduce due diligence obligations, particularly with respect to transactions with state-owned enterprises and companies linked to politically exposed persons (PEPs).

Glencore's registered office is in Zug, Switzerland, where its senior management was approving bribes.

The judicial documents contain references to Glencore's home country, with transfers from Swiss bank accounts being used to bribe foreign officials.

Individual foreign officials were bribed with cash, and according to US investigators, Glencore employees withdrew the money from a cash desk at Baar's headquarters until 2016.

Public Eye called upon Swiss justice to take action against Glencore in December 2017, which led to the Federal Prosecutor's Office opening criminal proceedings against Glencore in June 2020.

The US Department of Justice promised Glencore a reduction in its fine of around $30 million if there is a conviction in Switzerland within a year.

The Swiss prosecutors were not able to conclude their proceedings jointly with their foreign colleagues, and the reason for this remains a mystery.