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 via
e-mail to pay a representative approximately $45,000 as the
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)
