Alstorm bribery scandal link to Malaysia

Alstom Network Schweiz AG, a unit of a French power engineering and train firm, has been ordered to pay US$42.2m as punishment for a bribery scandal that spanned three countries including a CHF7.7m pay-off in Malaysia.
This is the excerpt from the summary punishment order under the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure:

14. Payment of bribes in Malaysia
14.1 At the end of the 1990′s, the state-licensed TTPC (Teknologi Tenaga Perlis Consortium Sdtn Bhd) had major contracts for the delivery and maintenance of gas turbines to award for the PERLIS project in Malaysia. At the end of 1999, the then existing ABB ALSTOM POWER (Schweiz) AG, Baden, signed various consultancy agreements to this end with various offshore companies. The contracts provided for success fees to be paid for the successful signing of delivery and maintenance contracts for gas turbines.
14.2 After the sectors in question were transferred from ABB to ALSTOM, ALSTOM exchanged the offshore companies ABB had used as consultants. However, investigation results show that the two new consultants brought in as contract partners of ALSTOM and its national companies ALSTOM Schweiz AG and ALSTOM O&M AG were effectively used as intermediary companies for Chee Liang TI and Abdul Hamid PAWANTEH, who were employed by ALSTOM via the consultancy agreements and “Project Development Agreement” and known to a small circle of ALSTOM employees. Because the original consultants were individuals, the use of an established company was chosen in order to comply with internal control.
However other internal regulations (no offshore companies, no companies with accounts outside the project country, no success fees over 3% of the contract value) were disregarded; distributing payments to different offshore companies with the same financial beneficiaries knowingly exceeded the last of these provisions. Both Chee Liang TI and Abdul Hamid PAWANTEH were leading executives of TTPC at the time, and the latter was also a local politician in the constituent state of Perlis where the power station was to be built. It is obvious that the ALSTOM employees involved in this case wished to influence TTPC decision-
makers with payments to award contracts to ALSTOM. There is also indication that an ALSTOM employee involved illegally and without the knowledge of ALSTOM personally enriched himself.
14.3 The parties to the contractual agreement to deliver, operate, and maintain gas turbines were ALSTOM Schweiz AG and ALSTOM O&M AG on one side and TTPC on the other. TTPC consisted of the consortium members Tenaga Nasional Berhard, TNB (20%), Landmark Sdn. Bhd (20%), Alpha Intercontinental Sdn Bhd (30%), Gerang Sutera Sdn Bhd (20%), and Yayasang Islam Perlis via Infostaas Engineering Sdn (10%). TTPC is a consortium with a state minority holding that could carry out its business solely under a state license and that additionally was authorized to sell the electricity it produced to the state company TNB at predefined rates in accordance with a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with TNB.
14.4 After obtaining the authorization to deliver and maintain turbines for the PERLIS power station and after securing the necessary financing, ALSTOM, via the involved Business Units, and within the aforementioned consultancy agreements and “Project Development Agreement” paid success fees which converted in total at approximately 7.7 million CHF via the Defendant to the two offshore companies after art. 102 CC came into effect. After deduction of a commission of about 5%, these payments were channeled through the accounts of additional offshore companies to the two executives of TTPC, Chee Liang TI and Abdul Hamid PAWANTEH, with accounts in Switzerland.
14.5 These circumstances make it clear that the award of contracts / order execution and securing of financing were intended to be illegally influenced by the consultancy agreements and “Project Development Agreement” and were indeed illegally influenced by the payments.
14.6 Both of the aforementioned beneficiaries were at the time leading executives at the client of ALSTOM. In return for payment, they influenced both the award of contracts as part of this project in previous years (including securing of financing) and ensured that any difficulties encountered by the client in the performance of the contract were resolved in favor of ALSTOM. In this case again, the beneficiaries must be functionally characterized as public officials in terms of Art. 322 septies in conjunction with Art. 110(3) SCC and the payments made considered bribery in terms of the former of the two regulations.

Ho-hum, another day, another scandal…
Summary Punishment Order