01/14/2007
The Parmalat case
As the OECD report on bribery (This report was approved and adopted by the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (CIME) on 28 May 2004) said, "The first investigations conducted by the prosecutor with Luxembourg banks and financial institutions holding assets of the Italian agri-food group Parmalat confirmed that some Luxembourg banks show little enthusiasm for fulfilling their reporting obligations: not only did some of them wait to report their suspicions of money laundering to the prosecutor until after the announcement of Parmalat’s collapse at the end of December 2003, but others remained much more discreet." But it is true that in this Center banks and financial institutions consider that "offences such as forgery, use of forgery, false balance sheets, use of false balance sheets or unauthorised use of corporate property are offences with financial connotations which are confused with laundering for the sole purpose of applying exceptional powers to these vague offences (See ABBL Report 2003).
Negligence has replaced pragmatism.
As far as Auditors'liability is concerned, Parmalat SpA has reached an agreement with former auditor Deloitte & Touche to settle all their legal claims, under which Parmalat will receive 149 mln usd, the two firms said in a joint statement dated 12 January 2007.
According to Maurice Lam, Managing Partner of Deloitte Luxembourg, the entity is not involved. as audits stated remarks (Cf. interview in Luxemburger Wort dated 27 October 2004). The investigations on files demonstrated that Deloitte Luxembourg was actually not involved, as Maurice Lam said.
OECD Report 2004
Court Sustains CMHT's Complaint in Parmalat Action Against Certain Auditor Defendants (28 June 2005)
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (25 July 2006)
Deloitte to pay Parmalat $149 mln to settle suit (Reuters)
Interview of Maurice Lam (in French)
09:40 Posted in Luxembourg | Permalink | Comments (0)
The comments are closed.