Dear Scroobal.
Under Section eight and nine of the corruption act. I could offer a bribe to a road sweeper for him to award me an IT contract seperate to the ministry he worked for and I would be liable for offering the bribe and if accepted the road sweeper would be guilty to. Similarly a director accepting coffee from a vendor would be presumed to be corrupt under section 8.
Very few people realise about the pervasiveness and all encompassing nature of the language of the act and that was the part that NBG fell foul off.
This landmark case will test the "definition" of corruption. as the wording for the act as previous cases were clear cut. A direct benefit for a direct result, embezzelemnt etc etc. NBG falls into the loose ends of the definition and I dare say that if NBG is found guilty, then any civil servant , ps, ds , accepting dinner, golf game etc from a local company would be liable as well or for that matter a director accepting a cup of kopi o.
My prediction is aquittal on appeal.
Locke
Lets make this exciting. Only this case. Appeal not counted. Winner allowed to "shift" panties.
Scroobal - convicted
