What are the latest developments in the case of JPMC ?
The General Prosecutor Witnesses Disprove Allegations
One of the benefits of having an open court in the JPMC proceedings is that the media had access to the General Prosecutor’s witness testimonies in the case. The testimonies of witnesses- particularly those with strong practical knowledge or links with JPMC- negated the personalized and distorted allegations that have been directed at the former Chairman and CEO, Walid Kurdi. These testimonies have clarified the picture and highlighted facts about how the company actually operates and the nature of contracts between phosphate and fertiliser buyers. All this indicates that there was no discrepancy or wrongdoing at the time when Kurdi was managing JPMC. The testimonies also made it clear that the charges against Walid Kurdi are not only false, but that they were based on the desire to fabricate allegations and create a trial by public perception, which was neither legal nor based on any valid evidence. What has unfolded in the court to date, indicates the gap between these false allegations and the reality made clear by the witnesses themselves.
Walid Kurdi is charged with causing JPMC a loss of 42 million JDs in shipping fees of phosphate and fertilisers, and the claim that had he employed the services of the company “Al Musharata Al Bahriya”, there would not have been such losses. www.phosphate.me
The witnesses confirmed the following There are two ways of selling
JPMC adopted FOB as its method of sales
JPMC does not cover costs of shipping
CFR: which entails shipping the goods to the final port of destination. In such cases, the company would be paid for the product and the costs of shipping, which would be conducted by a shipping company agreed by both JPMC and the buyer. In this case, the buyer would pay for shipping costs.
JPMC, in a Board decision in 2004 (more than two years before Kurdi assumed his management position) decided to adopt FOB as its method of sales, hence the company had already dispensed with the services of the “Al Musharata” company.
JPMC sent an official letter to the General Prosecutor on the 16/10/2012 confirming that it does not cover the costs of shipping, and that these are covered by the buyer. This proves that JPMC did not accrue any losses in terms of shipping fees, and these allegations are without foundation.
FOB: which means that the sales agreement includes delivering the goods on board ship in the shipping port, in which case JPMC would be paid for the goods and the buyer would directly cover shipping costs himself and would choose a shipping company freely and of his choice alone.
Walid Kurdi is accused of exploiting his office through ten sales contracts made to intermediary companies at prices below those of the international price bulletins, which incurred loss to the company and personal gain to himself and others. . The witnesses confirmed the following
In-line with Global Prices
Intermediary Company
JPMC sales prices were in line with global prices and also competitor prices, and the company’s auditor, Ernst and Young confirmed this in the General Assembly of Shareholders in April 2012, for the year 2011.
Dealing through an intermediary company was at the explicit request of the Indian buyer
Not Accredited
Not Accurate
International price bulletins are not considered to be set, accredited reference which sellers are obliged to follow in setting their prices. Prices cited are only indicators based on the statements of buyers and sellers after sales have been completed.
There are numerous international Price Bulletins, which contain differing figures that do not necessarily reflect actual global prices. Sales prices are determined by numerous factors including competition, quality of product, distance between buyer and seller, desire to enter new markets, quantity of sold product and so on.
Prior to Kurdi
No Personal Interest
Dealing through intermediary companies was company practice prior to Walid Kurdi, that continues until today.
Walid Kurdi had no personal interest or gain from intermediary companies, and he neither owned nor invested in these companies. Company ownership documents are indisputable evidence of this.
Therefore, there is no evidence or proof of any illegal profiting made by the former Chairman CEO or the parties involved in the contracts, as alleged in the case.
Walid Kurdi is accused of selling higher quality phosphate at lower cost, providing the buyer with better quality than that agreed upon, through the practice of blending. The witnesses confirmed the following
The practice of blending to improve quality was followed since the 1980s.
The Council of Ministers agreed to the continuation of this practice to enhance quality.
Blending was performed for the majority of major clients, with no exception.
Blending aims at lowering the level of silica so that the product is acceptable to buyers.
The Witnesses of the Prosecution's Testimonies Clearly Indicate:
No Personal Interest Not a single witness testified that Walid Kurdi had a personal interest or gain from intermediary companies.
No personal profit from Sales Not a single witness testified that Walid Kurdi profited from the sales contracts of phosphate or fertilisers.
No Financial Fraud Not a single witness testified that Walid Kurdi cheated in sales and shipping contracts.
Inaccurate International Price References Not a single witness testified that international price bulletins are an accredited reference that sellers are obliged to follow.
JPMC Interest Came First
In Conclusion
Not a single witness testified that Walid Kurdi was more interested in his personal gain than the interests of the company.
Guilt by accusation does not mean that there is any validity to charges that are false and allegations that are untrue. www.phosphate.me