Λοιπόν, το θέμα είναι απλό. Γύρω στα μέσα του 2000, ποιά στελέχη της ΔΕΗ υπέγραψαν να αγοραστεί εξοπλισμός από την αμερικανική εταιρία Control Components Inc. (CCI); Συγκεκριμένα, βαλβίδες αντικατάστασης και εξυπηρέτηση των υφιστάμενων βαλβίδων στους σταθμούς παραγωγής ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας Αμυνταίου και Αγίου Δημητρίου. Οι κύριοι εισαγγελείς ας διαβάσουν την απόφαση του δικαστηρίου της Καλιφόρνια και ας τους βρουν. Ποιός ξέρει τι άλλο θα κρύβεται από πίσω. Όπως έχει δείξει η ιστορία, τέτοιες φάμπρικες κόστισαν εκατομμύρια στον Ελληνικό λαό και είναι ανεπίτρεπτο η δικαιοσύνη να περιμένει από blogs την διερεύνηση δικαστικών αποφάσεων που αφορούν την πατρίδα. Αναμένουμε…
Ολόκληρη η απόφαση:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PLEA AGREEMENT FOR
DEFENDANT DAVID EDMONDS
One of
CCI’s customers was the Public Power Corporation of
Greece
(“Public Power”), which owned and operated the Amynteon
and
Aghios Dimitrios power plants. Defendant EDMONDS knew Public
Power was
a Greek state-owned entity. Defendant EDMONDS
understands
that at any trial, the government would prove
sufficient
facts to demonstrate that Public Power was a
government
instrumentality within the meaning of the FCPA, Title
15,
United States Code, Section 78dd-2(h)(2)(A) and its employees
“foreign
officials” within the meaning of the FCPA.
In or about 2000, CCI sought to
obtain a contract for
replacement valves and the
servicing of existing valves at the
Amynteon and Aghios Dimitrios
power plants. On or about May 9,
2000, a
CCI employee sought permission from defendant EDMONDS
representative “has obligations to
pay some friends with the
commission.” On or about May 15,
2000, defendant EDMONDS
responded in an e-mail as follows:
“I approve the 15% commission
to [the representative] for [the
Amynteon and Aghios Dimitrios
orders].”
Although
defendant EDMONDS did not actually know that the
approximately
$45,000 was to be offered, given, or promised to an
employee
at Public Power for the purpose of securing Public
Power’s
business, he was aware of a high probability of this
circumstance
and failed to make additional inquiries concerning
the
nature of the commission and the suspected recipient in order
to
determine whether the proposed commission payment might be
made to
an employee at Public Power for the purpose of securing
Public
Power’s business. This awareness arose, at least in part,
from
defendant EDMONDS’s knowledge that, as described above,
CCI’s
sales model included the cultivation of FICs who sometimes
included
employees of CCI’s customers.
Although
defendant EDMONDS did not know about the
prohibitions
of the FCPA, defendant EDMONDS was aware that the
law would
forbid making an undisclosed payment to an employee of
a
customer for the purpose of securing the customer’s business.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/carsons/2012-06-14-edmonds-plea-agreement.pdf (Σελ.
9-10)
olympia.gr