This week's ABC 4Corners report 'Dirty Money' revealed allegations of bribery of foreign officials through global agents who were paid higher than normal commissions to secure contracts for RBA's Melbourne based firm, Securency.

Securency manufactures the plastic polymer banknotes we use in Australia, touted much for it's anti-counterfeit technology.

This is not the first time Australia has been involved in international bribery scandals for trade - AWB was the most infamous.

The question comes down to whether the RBA or Austrade were aware of these dealings and turned a blind eye and what are the implications for Australia's standing in the international community.

The investigation is ongoing and there has been no official findings as yet.

There is also a question of integrity by the ABC and The AGE - whether it was fair to air such a story without the findings of the official investigation. By all accounts the AFP ignored earlier reports so perhaps the official investigation gained impetus only because of the allegations raised earlier by The AGE.

It is difficult to know as the AFP, RBA and Securency refused to be interviewed, which is probably more due to legal considerations while the investigation is ongoing, rather than evasion.

I tend to think IF the evidence is overwhelming, as indicated by the whistleblower and others interviewed in the piece, then journalists have a duty to report.

What do others think about the implications of the allegations for Australia?

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2905618.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/national/bank-bribery-probe-widens-to-europe-and-asia-20100525-wb14.html

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RBA-takes-Securency-claims-very-seriously-pd20100525-5S2LL?OpenDocument&src=hp4

Response by Securency on their website:

http://www.securency.com.au/en/about-us/announcements

moral relativity can only lead to corruption. This is no better demonstrated than the number of expelled corrupt State Pollies over the last 10 years. We are reaping the stupidity of this secular dogma. All money becomes dirty when put into the hands of corrupt people who are self righteous in their own eyes. This applies as much to religous people as it does secular.

That is a very tricky one Pelican, for the following reasons.

When AWB were nailed, something like 2000 companies in total were
nailed. Only 2 have seemingly ever been dealt with, one being
AWB. That includes all those American and European companies etc.

Fact is that in many countries, you simply won't do business.
AWB would have sold no wheat to Iraq, if they had not gone along
with the trucking fees, that is the reality.

Its not with all products, but certainly with products where Asian
companies are competitors.

So lets say Pelican runs an export company. Are you going to do
no business, or do what all the rest are doing?

runner
I agree with you that corruption is not limited - secularists and non-secularists are equally corruptible it always comes down to one's own personal ethics.

Yabby
I was thinking a bit along those lines too. The questions about whether government knew - following on from AWB.

If Australian companies (some with government links as this one) are willing to pay bribes and everyone else is doing it there needs to be a global agreement or understanding that bribes are unacceptable. The UK and the US are making all the right grunting noises on this one, but if bribery is a 'natural' part of doing business in some areas of the world one assumes that many Western democracies have been guilty.

The real cost is to the people who have to bear the brunt of higher prices or in some cases money that might better have been put into development rather than line the pockets of the greedy.

Sort of makes a complete nonsense of the idea of 'free trade' then doesn't it?

And it gives a fresh insight into the idea of 'organised crime'.... and maybe that is the actual role of governments, to organise crime for the benefit of the elites of the world?

After all, passport fraud is OK as far as our governments are concerned, so long as it's them, not us... and I'd have never guessed that without Honest Julie blurting it out the other day.

As for runner's attempt to blame 'secularists', whatever is meant by that, there can be no larger system of organised crime than 'the Church', as far as I can see.

The Vatican is a continuing AWB that few seem to care about.

I suspect that if bribes are part and parcel of business, as they clearly are, then there is no chance of getting them banned... anymore than any government is going to work to rid us of tax havens or a global tax rate that prevents the exploitation of one nation after another.

Pelican,

As I see it all the information isn't in so a definitive answer would be premature.

I find Yabby's argument unacceptable given it's based on three rather dubious assumptions and ignores the fourth/fifth.
- Everybody else is doing it .
- Its only wrong if you are caught.
- the end justifies the means.
- Yabby's argument IGNORES THE LAW... there is no excuse under law.
- I would maintain that there is/should be a higher standard applied because of the RBA,sovereign link.
- The program allegedly revealed that a sister company (totally privately owned) that shared the top man stopped dealing with agents but it wasn't enforced with Securency why?

On the surface, This sorry saga potentially speaks volumes about the potential deliberate malfeasance or incompetence.
i.e. which numb nut didn't do or read a Feasibility study into setting up the company including a SWOT analysis? Market assessment should have raised the market probability of corruptions should have put in and monitored protocols to minimize it.

Austrade and the Fed Police's roll in this bears looking at too.

Business doesn't have a divine right to do what ever they want regardless of the laws that apply.
Even under Capitalism there is no guarantee that business to exist simply because it has a product it wishes to sell.