REJOINDER: UPDATE ON SHORE RIG SCANDAL EXPOSED!
Ngozi Okonjo Iweala React, Absolves Self of $1.25 million Wire transfer Bribe
…Aide says she’s never involved in the Scandal
*Writes Editors of Naija Standard Newspaper Inc USA *See US Court Judgment Attached as Evidence
* We stand by our story by re-attaching the United States Court Judgment–Management
* ‘We expect Iweala to clear air by answering issues raised in our earlier published article, not to contrive innuendos where none exist. We keep informing, educating and entertaining the public without fear or favor’-Board of Editors
BY SAMSON SHOAGA/MANAGING EDITOR/NEW YORK
BARELY few days ago, we carried an article published here regarding some damming allegations traceable to a 90-day undercover investigation done by our American Editors, where we were able to get a copy of a Court Judgment in United States which mentioned names of Olusegun Obasanjo, a former president of Nigeria, Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, Minister of Finance/Coordinating Minister of Economy and Kayode Are then led State Security Service (SSS) in an alleged $1.25 million Wire transfer Bribe ; all of which happened in 2004; but allegedly kept secret.
As journalists and members of the Fourth Estate of the Realm, it is certainly within the purview and basic rights of press freedom to tell the people what is happening, when it happened, how it happened and where it happened, provided there is a court document to back it up; in a bid to let the Nigerian public know how Nigeria at any time is being governed or was governed.
For the records, since our award winning online newswire began publication in Nigeria and United States; it is not in our character, strange to our editorial policy not to follow journalism precepts in navigating and weaving together investigative stories. Much as we hold in high esteem all these Nigerians whose names the United States Court judgment mentioned in the alleged $1.25 million Wire transfer Bribe, we owe it a duty to the generality of Nigerians to always uphold the truth at all times by waiting for them to react.
NSN American Editors expect Iweala to react to issues raised in the US Court judgment
Iweala should remember that at all times whenever her aide send us articles on her activities in Nigeria, we publish same almost immediately here, so it is wrong, libelous, ill-conceived, diversionary antics and biased in bad fate for her aide (a Special Adviser), Paul Nwabuikwu, to allege among things that “The publishers are obviously on a sponsored mission to invent a connection between the alleged scandal and the minister for purposes that are unprofessional and outrightly malicious. But like others before them, they will fail because the truth will prevail.”
Since “he that comes to equity must come with clean hands”, as a popular axiom rightly puts it, we expect Iweala, a woman of high integrity to react directly to issues raised in the United States Court Judgment, not to resort to ‘libel’ because as a leader the Nigerian public believe so much in her, just as we do, to tell us ‘what really happened’ in the American judgment attached again here for the world to peruse.
What our Editors were able to infer from her tacit response was ‘no response to issues’ so raised which may have been caused whether her media aides did not read the United States Court judgment to the letters or oversight on issues raised in the American Court. We are no judge here, as our editorial team here in United States are several award winning journalists making Nigeria, Africa proud in America. We produce here (unedited) the reaction of this honorable minister and we would want the public to carefully read through her response to see if she truly responded to the allegations raised in the US Court judgment: “We have received several inquiries about a news article published online by a medium which identifies itself as Nigerian Standard Newspaper. The rather incoherent article is titled ON SHORE RIG SCANDAL EXPOSED: THE TRUE STORY! Obasanjo, Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, SSS named in $1.25 million Wire transfer Bribe…Even a casual perusal of the news story would reveal that the reference to the Coordinating Minister of the Economy and Minister of Finance is tenuous, contrived and absolutely false. The publishers are obviously on a sponsored mission to invent a connection between the alleged scandal and the minister for purposes that are unprofessional and outrightly malicious. But like others before them, they will fail because the truth will prevail. Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala remains an impregnable bastion of integrity and these darts will make no impact because Nigerians and the world at large can see through the antics of paid agents masquerading as journalists” Paul C Nwabuikwu, Special Adviser to the Coordinating Minister and Minister of Finance.
NSN Management Position
The management, Editors & Board of Directors of Naija Standard Newspaper (not Nigerian Standard Newspaper) as earlier labeled wishes Iweala should tell Nigerians are rather innocence in the US Court Judgment, a platform for the news article which we stand upon instead of all these diversionary tactics of leaving ‘real issues for unreal enemies’. Truth is constant at all times as the Northern Star.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 2C13 A: Alexandria Division
(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
v.) CRIMINAL NO. 1:13CR (T
vi.) PARKER DRILLING COMPANY • Count 1: 15 U.S.C. §78dd-l(a)(3)/(Violation of the Anti-Bribery Provisions of the Defendant. j Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)
INFORMATION
THE UNITED STATES CHARGES THAT:
At all relevant times, unless otherwise specified:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
1. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1. et
seq. (‘TCPA”), prohibited certain classes of persons and entities from corruptly offering, paying, promising to pay, or authorizing the payment of any money or anything of value, directly or indirectly, to a foreign government official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for, or directing business to, any person.
The Defendant and Defendant’s Subsidiaries
2. PARKER DRILLING COMPANY (“PARKER DRILLING”), a provider of contract drilling and drilling-services, was incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in Houston,
Texas, operated in numerous countries around the world, and employed more than 3.000 people.
PARKER DRILLING’S shares were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission I Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID# 1(“SEC”) pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PARKER
DRILLING’S shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PKD.”
3. As an issuer of publicly traded securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15, United States Code, Section 781, PARKER
DRILLING was required to file periodic reports with the SEC under Section 13ofthe Securities Exchange Act, Title 15 United States Code, Section 78m. Accordingly, PARKER DRILLING was an “issuer” within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-l.
4. PARKER DRILLING disclosed financial information to the public through various means, including through the electronic filing of periodic and annual reports. PARKER
DRILLING electronically transmitted its filings to the SEC’s Electronic Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) at the Management Office of Information and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia.
5. PARKER DRILLING operated through various subsidiaries throughout the world. In Nigeria, PARKER DRILLING operated oil-drilling rigs owned by Parker Drilling (Nigeria) Limited, a Nigerian entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parker Drilling Of Tshore International, Inc., a Cayman Islands corporation and wholly-owned PARKER DRILLING subsidiary. PARKER DRILLING ceased drilling operations in Nigeria in2006.
The Defendant’s Employees and Agents
6. Executive A, a United States citizen based in Houston, Texas, was a senior PARKER DRILLING officer who performed financial and compliance functions for PARKER DRILLING from in or around 2002through in or around2005.
7. Executive B, a United States citizen based in Houston, Texas, was a senior PARKER DRILLING officer who performed in the legal function for PARKER DRILLING. Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 15 Page ID# 28. Employee A, a United States citizen based in Warri, Nigeria, was a PARKER
DRILLING employee and officer of Parker Drilling Nigeria. From in or around January 2001 through in or around December 2002, Employee A was the General Manager of PARKER
DRILLING’S operations in Nigeria.
9. Employee B, a United States citizen based in Lagos, Nigeria, was a PARKER
DRILLING employee, officer of Parker Drilling Nigeria, and the General Manager of PARKER DRILLING’S operations in Nigeria.
10. Law Firm was a United States limited liability partnership with multiple offices in the United States. Law Firm served as outside counsel to PARKER DRILLING and provided legal and business advice to PARKER DRILLING on a number of issues, including resolution of PARKER DRILLING’S customs and related issues in Nigeria. Law Firm invoiced PARKER
DRILLING and was paid for its services in the United States.
11. U.S. Outside Counsel was a United States citizen and a partner in Law Firm, who served as PARKER DRILLING’S outside counsel. U.S. Outside Counsel provided legal
and business advice to PARKER DRILLING on customs and other issues in Nigeria. U.S.
Outside Counsel, through Law Firm, invoiced PARKER DRILLING from and was paid in the United States.
12. Nigeria Outside Counsel, a Nigerian citizen based in Nigeria, served as one of PARKER DRILLING’S outside attorneys in Nigeria. Nigeria Outside Counsel advised PARKER DRILLING on customs and other matters in Nigeria. Nigeria Outside Counsel
invoiced PARKER DRILLING from and was paid in Nigeria.
13. Panalpina World Transport (Nigeria) Limited (“Panalpina”) was a Nigerian entity that provided a variety of logistics and customs services to PARKERDRILLING. Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 15 Page ID# 3Panalpina, on PARKER DRILLING’S behalf, submitted to Nigerian customs officials false documents related to the temporary importation of drilling rigs that PARKER DRILLING owned
or operated in Nigerian waters. Panalpina invoiced PARKER DRILLING and was paid for its services in Nigeria.
14. Nigeria Agent was a Nigerian and British citizen based in the United Kingdom.
In or around January 2004, Law Firm and U.S. Outside Counsel retained Nigeria Agent to assist PARKER DRILLING in connection with customs matters in Nigeria. With one exception, PARKER DRILLING paid Nigeria Agent through Law Firm and U.S. Outside Counsel for Nigeria Agent’s TI Panel-related services.
Nigerian Officials
15. The Ministry of Finance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was responsible. For assessing and collecting applicable duties and tariffs on goods imported into Nigeria and did so through a government agency called the Nigeria Customs Service (“NCS”). The NCS was an agency and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria, and its employees were “foreign officials” within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15,United States Code, Section 78dd-1(f)(1)(A).
16. The Panel of Inquiry for the Investigation of All Cases of Temporary Import
Permits Issued Between 1984 to Year 2000 (the “TI Panel”) was a board empanelled for the purpose of examining certain duties and tariffs that the NCS collected or failed to collect between 1984 and 2000. The TI Panel was presidentially appointed, operated under the auspices of the Nigerian President’s office, and possessed the power to issue subpoenas and levy fines.
The TI Panel exercised its discretion when determining the fine amounts that it would levy. The TI Panel was an agency and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria, and its employees Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 4 of 15 Page ID# 4were “foreign officials” within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15,United States Code, Section 78dd-1 (f)(1)(A).
17. Nigeria’s State Security Service (“SSS”) was a Nigerian intelligence and law enforcement agency that operated as a department within the Nigerian government’s executive branch. The SSS was a department, agency, and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria, and its employees were “foreign officials” within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-1(f)(1)(A).
Nigerian Customs
18. Under Nigerian law, customs duties generally were required to be paid for goods imported into Nigeria, such as rigs and vessels imported into Nigerian waters. During the relevant time, the customs duties that were assessed to permanently import a rig into Nigerian waters were significant, between approximately 10-20% of the total value of the rig. In the alternative, companies could import rigs and other items on a temporary basis pursuant to which no customs duties would be assessed. If temporarily importing a rig, the company had to post a bond (“TIP bond”) with the Nigerian government as security for any duties or penalties that might be owed during the life of the TIP. Assuming no adverse events occurred during operations, the bond would be returned to the company once the rig was exported.
19. A rig, or other item, could be imported on a temporary basis only if the item: (a) was considered a high valued piece of special equipment, (b) was not available for sale in Nigeria, and (c)was being imported/temporarily and was intended to be exported. If these requirements were met, a company, through a local customs agent, could apply for a temporary import permit (“TIP”).
Case 1: 13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 5 of 15 Page ID# 520. Significantly, items imported under a TIP (and TIP extensions) could not remain in Nigeria longer than the period allowed by the TIP and/or TIP extensions. Upon the expiration of the TIP (and related TIP extensions), the owner could either choose to permanently import the rig (known as “nationalizing” or “converting to home use”) or export the rig and re-import it and obtain a new initial TIP. The failure to export the rig after the TIP expired could result in the assessment of Nigerian penalties of up to six times its cost.
PARKER DRILLING’S Nigerian Operations and the TIP “Paper Process”
21. The drilling rigs that PARKERDRILLING operated in Nigeria were originally imported into Nigeria by Noble Drilling Corporation and were sold in or around 1996 to Mallard Drilling International, Inc. (“Mallard Drilling”). In or around late 1996, PARKER DRILLING acquired Mallard Drilling; a Mallard Drilling subsidiary, Energy Ventures International, Inc. (“EVI”); and all of Mallard Drilling and EVI’s Nigerian operations and drilling rigs.
22. By in or around 1998, PARKER DRILLING was operating five drilling rigs in Nigeria, each with a declared value of between $2 million and $18 million. Until it converted its drilling rigs to home use in or around 2004, PARKER DRILLING’S Nigerian rigs all operated under TIPs. Initially, PARKER DRILLING retained the customs agent that Mallard Drilling had used to obtain TIP extensions. In or around late 2001,this agent was no longer able to obtain TIP extensions, and PARKER DRILLING then retained Panalpina to obtain TIPs and TIP extensions on PARKER DRILLING’S behalf.
23. Between about late2001 and about April 2002, Panalpina obtained new TIPs for
PARKERDRILLING’S rigs by submitting false paperwork on PARKERDRILLING’S behalf to avoid the time, cost, and risks associated with exporting the rigs and re-importing them into Nigerian waters (a process that Panalpina referred to as the “paper process” or “recycling”).
Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 6 of 15 Page ID# 6Panalpina created and caused to be presented to Nigerian officials documents that reflected that the rigs had been physically exported and re-imported. In reality, the drilling rigs never left Nigerian waters.
The TI Panel’s Inception and PARKER DRILLING’S Proceedings Before the TI Panel
24. In or around late 2002, Nigeria formed the TI Panel, a Nigerian government commission assembled to review the adequacy of the TIPs that had been granted previously. Among other things, the TI Panel reviewed particular rig operators’ TIPs to see whether particular TIPs had lapsed, causing a gap between TIPs. The TI Panel exercised its discretion when, among other things, determining which companies to investigate and the fine amounts that the TI Panel would levy.
25. In or around December 2002, the TI Panel summonsed PARKER DRILLING. Beginning in or around January 2003, Nigeria Outside Counsel and PARKER DRILLING’S local personnel appeared several times before the TI Panel concerning PARKER DRILLING’S TIPs. On or about February 4, 2004, and thereafter, Nigeria Agent represented PARKER DRILLING before the TI Panel.
26. On or about April 22, 2004, the TI Panel concluded that PARKER DRILLING had violated Nigeria’s Customs &Excise Management Act of 1958 with respect to several of its TIPs.
27. In or around early May 2004, the TI Panel assessed a fine of $3.8million against PARKER DRILLING.
28. Following the corrupt conduct outlined below, on or about May 26, 2004, the TI
Panel reduced PARKER DRILLING’S fine to just $750,000.
Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 7 of 15 Page ID# 7Bribery Scheme
29. From the beginning, the TI Panel posed a serious problem for PARKER DRILLING for at least two reasons. First, PARKER DRILLING failed to secure new TIPs and subsequent extensions in accordance with Nigerian law. As a January 2003 email among
PARKER DRILLING personnel discussing the TI Panel noted, PARKER DRILLING’S “main problem is going to be providing positive documentation showing that the TI Bonds were filed according to the requirements of the Customs laws in effect at the time.”
30. Second, PARKER DRILLING personnel, including local personnel in Nigeria, Employees A and B, and Executives A and B were aware that the process by which PARKER DRILLING had kept its drilling rigs in Nigeria violated Nigerian law. In or around January 2003, Panalpina informed Nigeria Outside Counsel and local Nigeria personnel that the “paper process” violated Nigerian law, and that, if the TI Panel were to find out about it, “both Panalpina and Parker [Drilling] will be in trouble.” Executives A and B also came to understand that the “paper process” violated Nigerian law.
31. By in or around December 2003, PARKER DRILLING wanted to resolve the TI Panel issues so that it could sell its drilling rigs and exit Nigeria altogether. Executives A and B were responsible for managing PARKER DRILLING’S exit.
32. U.S. Outside Counsel introduced PARKER DRILLING to one of U.S. Outside Counsel’s clients, which suggested that PARKER DRILLING retain Nigeria Agent to resolve its Nigerian customs issues. Nigeria Agent’s resume, which U.S. Outside Counsel provided to PARKER DRILLING, did not reflect any past experience working in Nigeria or handling customs issues; instead, Nigeria Agent had spent around 15 years as “Executive Managing Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 8 of 15 Page ID# 8Director” of his own group of companies and had spent 2 years before that as a mechanical engineer.
33. Nevertheless, although PARKER DRILLING conducted no additional diligence into Nigeria Agent’s qualifications, after Executives A and B and others interviewed Nigeria Agent, PARKER DRILLING indirectly retained Nigeria Agent. In or around January 2004, through Law Firm, PARKERDRILLING entered an agreement with Nigeria Agent whereby Nigeria Agent would “act as a consultant to [Law Firm] to provide professional assistance resolving these issues in Nigeria.” The agreement did not specify the amount or basis for calculating the fees and expenses that Nigeria Agent could charge PARKER DRILLING, other than to require an initial retainer of$50,000 and to provide for an unexplained “success fee.”
PARKER DRILLING wired Nigeria Agent $50,000, as soon as Nigeria Agent signed the contract.
34. With one exception, PARKER DRILLING paid Nigeria Agent indirectly through
Law Firm for all services related to the TI Panel. When Nigeria Agent required funds, PARKER DRILLING transferred funds to Law Firm by wire, and Law Firm in turn forwarded those funds to Nigeria Agent by international wire. Nigeria Agent’s funding requests typically first went by email to Law Firm and U.S. Outside Counsel and asked for large currency transfers, often $100,000 or more at a time. Law Firm and U.S. Counsel then forwarded Nigeria Agent’s requests by email to Executive B, who discussed the requests with Executive A. Executives A and B were involved in approving Nigeria Agent’s payment requests related to the TI Panel.
35. The wire communications and transfers in furtherance of the scheme included:
a. On or about January 26, 2004, U.S. Outside Counsel emailed Executive B that “we need to wire [Nigeria Agent] an additional $50,000. The first Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 9 of 15 Page ID# 9traunch went in retainer fees and the entertainment of the [Nigerian presidential] delegation.”
b. On or about February 2, 2004, Executive B and Nigeria Agent corresponded by email concerning Nigeria Agent’s upcoming meeting with Nigeria’s president.
c. On or about February 9, 2004, Executives A and B corresponded by email to discuss Nigeria Agent’s meetings with Nigeria’s president and planned correspondence with the Minister of Finance.
d. On or about February24, 2004, Nigeria Agent emailed U.S. Outside Counsel, copying Executive B, writing that Nigeria Agent had been meeting with the SSS and Nigeria’s Minister of Finance. Nigeria Agent asked for additional money and tied the expenditures to winning the concession he was seeking for PARKERDRILLING, writing that he was “spending on average about US$3,000 a day for hotel accommodation, transport, food, entertainment, communication, and office work I need to spend anotherUS$60,000 on public relations for the intelligence work and this will be paid when the concession is given. We will need SSS in the future. It will help me if US$100,000 is sent to my account by Friday 27February 2004 as I plan to go to Nigeria on Sunday 29th February.”
e. On or about April 13, 2004, Nigeria Agent emailed U.S. Outside Counsel, copying Executive B, writing that “there is nothing more serious than landing in Nigeria without money to resolve the problems…. I have meeting tomorrow in Abuja to discuss the drilling contracts. This is my reason for 10 Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 10 of 15 Page ID# 10making sure that I can entertain my hosts because of their promises.
Therefore, please make sure that you transfer the funds today so that my Bank Officer can send to Nigeria tomorrow.” f. On or about April 19, 2004, Executives A and B corresponded by email concerning an upcoming hearing of the TI Panel. Nigeria Agent previously informed PARKER DRILLING that, although Nigeria Outside Counsel represented PARKER DRILLING in connection with the TI Panel, Nigeria
Agent did not want Nigeria Outside Counsel to attend a TI Panel hearing concerning PARKER DRILLING. In the exchange, Executive A wrote that Nigeria Agent would likely”respond negatively” to any PARKER DRILLING request to have Nigeria Outside Counsel attend the hearing with Nigeria Agent.
g. On or about May3, 2004, U.S. Outside Counsel emailed Executive B, writing that Nigeria Agent “will need$100,000in expense advances to cover various out of pocket expenses and social events that will occur on this trip.”
Executive B responded by email, pointing out that Nigeria Agent had not returned $25,000 that PARKER DRILLING had previously inadvertently double-paid to Nigeria Agent. U.S. Outside Counsel told Executive B to take it up with Nigeria Agent, who said that this expenses were running “about 4000 a day per person because of the entourage entertainment.”
h. On or about May 7,2004, Executive Be mailed Executive A, reciting that Executive B “spoke with[U.S. Outside Counsel] this evening after [U.S. Outside Counsel] had a conversation with [Nigeria Agent.] [Nigeria Agent] Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 11 of 15 Page ID# 11said that he needs another $150,000 to accomplish his objective. Apparently he was speaking in ‘code’ since he was on a hotel phone from Nigeria, but stated that he had previously advised you and I about this plan in London and made reference to the analogy of ‘a person being present and then leaving but if we agreed they were present all the time then they were’ or something along those lines. I remember the analogy but have no recollection of any discussion about it costing $250,000 to accomplish the objective. Now he wants the balance of $150,000 to complete this.” Executive A responded, “Let’s just tell [U.S. Outside Counsel] we need an invoice for the $150,000 expenditure.”
i. In response to the wire communications above, on or about January 9, February 3, February 27, April 14, May 4, May 11, and May 21,2004, PARKER DRILLING transferred to Law Firm by wire U.S. currency for subsequent transfer by interstate and international wire to Nigeria Agent. On or about April 13,2004, Parker Drilling Nigeria also transferred currency to Nigeria Agent by check. PARKER DRILLING transferred the U.S. currency so that Nigeria Agent could make the expenditures described above.
36. Until in or around May2004, Executives A and B paid and caused to be paid all Of Nigeria Agent’s expenses without receiving any invoices particularly describing the expenditures’ purposes. In or around May 2004, Executive B asked Law Firm for an invoice, when PARKER DRILLING’S treasurer informed Executive B that the lack of invoices could raise an issue in PARKER DRILLING’S ongoing Sarbanes Oxley audit, writing:
As you are fully aware, we are in the middle of SOX evaluation/documentation process. One item that is imperative for a wire transfer is a properly approved Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 12 of 15 Page ID# 12invoice to support a wire to a 3rd party. . . . We (Treasury) do not want to be 3rd written up for non-compliance when we are audited and having wires to 3 parties without an invoice will put us in non-compliance.
37. To fulfill PARKER DRILLING’S request, on or about May 10, 2004, Nigeria Agent sent to U.S. Outside Counsel an invoice for $350,000 in “professional fees for the period January – March 2004.” U.S. Outside Counsel forwarded the invoice to PARKER DRILLING and informed Executive B that he would reproduce the invoice on Law Firm letterhead. U.S. Outside Counsel also forwarded a separate invoice from Nigeria Agent for $150,000 in “Professional fees for 1 April — 7 May 2004.” U.S. Outside Counsel then sent to Executive B a summary invoice in the amount of $500,000, arbitrarily dividing the total $500,000 charge into separate categories entitled “fees” and “expenses,” without any basis to do so. Executive B accepted the invoice and retained it in PARKER DRILLING’S files, knowing that the invoice did not accurately reflect the true purpose of PARKER DRILLING’S wire transfers to Nigeria Agent.
38. Executives A and B later paid and caused to be paid additional TI Panel-related invoices, knowing that the description of fees and expenses on Law Firm’s invoices did not accurately reflect Nigeria Agent’s actual fees and expenses.
39. All told, PARKER DRILLING transferred and caused to be transferred to Nigeria Agent approximately $1.25 million to address PARKER DRILLING’S TI Panel issues.
40. Nigeria Agent succeeded in reducing PARKER DRILLING’S TI Panel fines. Although the TI Panel previously notified PARKER DRILLING that PARKER DRILLING would be required to pay a fine of $3.8million, on or about May26, 2004, the TI Panel reduced
That fine to just $750,000—a reduction of $3.05million, or just over 80 percent. 13 Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 13 of 15 Page ID# 13COUNT 1 Violation of the Anti-Bribery Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
42. From at least in or around January 2004 through in or around June 2004, within the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, the defendant, PARKER DRILLING COMPANY, an issuer organized under the laws of the United States, willfully did make use of the mails and means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, and authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, and authorization of the giving of anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value would be or had been offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, for purposes of: (i) influencing acts and decisions of such foreign officials in their official capacities; (ii) inducing such foreign officials to do and omit to do acts in violation of the lawful duties of such officials; (iii)securing an improper advantage; and (iv) inducing such foreign officials to use their influence with a foreign government and instrumentalities thereof to affect and influence acts and decisions of such government or instrumentalities, in order to assist defendant PARKER DRILLING COMPANY and others in obtaining and retaining business for and with, and directing business to, defendant PARKER DRILLING COMPANY and others; to wit, PARKER DRILLING COMPANY made and caused to be made from the United States in interstate and foreign commerce a series of payments totaling approximately $1.25 million to Nigeria Agent, knowing that all or a portion of those payments would be given or used to procure goods and services that 14 Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 14 of 15 Page ID# 14were to be given to a foreign government official in return for the diminution of a lawfully assessed fine.
(All in violation of Title 15. United States Code, Section 78dd-1(a)(3))
By:
Neil II. MacBride
United States Attorney
i/^-«-
Jasmine Yoon
Charles F. Connolly
Assistant United States Attorneys
By:
15
Jeffrey H. Knox
Chief, Fraud Section
Criminal Division
U.S. Department ofJustice
tcphcta J. Spioge
TrialYUtorney
Case 1:13-cr-00176-GBL Document 1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 15
