Now Superintendent Thomas Murphy has approached OSSL saying that he is going to investigate. He has presented himself “as an independent person to the ongoing issues in Co Mayo” with clean hands. I can only guess that he did not receive a share of the free booze received from Shell by hundreds of his fellow County Mayo Garda police officers. With all due respect to Superintendent Murphy, he can hardly be described as “independent”. However, if Superintendent Murphy decides to press ahead, the first person he should approach is Detective Chief Superintendent John Gilligan. He should ask Gilligan if he personally helped unload a delivery of alcohol at Bellmullet Garda station. (He did) If Gilligan declines to answer without first seeking advice from his lawyer, that alone would speak volumes. Superintendent Murphy may also wish to ask Gilligan and the other Garda who offloaded the free booze, who paid for it, who delivered it and who ended up drinking it?
By John Donovan
We have already published several articles about Shell’s corruption of the Irish Police Force, the Garda.
Shell has spent almost €100,000 at legitimate retail value on supplying free alcohol (brought across the border) to quell the thirst of hundreds of Garda officers involved in supposedly policing the controversial Corrib Gas Project on an impartial basis. Complaints have been made over the past several years by environmental campaigners and members of the local population all alleging that the police are working for Shell.
The Garda is currently the subject of public ridicule on YouTubeover the Shell alcohol corruption scandal.
Shell used a small local company, OSSL, as a “Mr Fixit” to ease the progress of the much hated pipeline by spreading gifts around where deemed necessary, for example on land owners.
To hide what was going on, invoices were falsified and OSSL had to hand over to Shell receipts for goods purchased for distribution to the lucky recipients, such as the free booze showered on County Mayo police.
Now more revelations:
- OSSL allege that Terry Nolan, when Chief Executive of Shell EP Ireland, demanded that Neil Rooney of OSSL should give a false statement to a Garda Ombudsman inquiry into a violent incident that took place at Pollathomais in County Mayo involving Garda Superintendent Joe Gannon, allegedly described by Nolan as being “Shell’s man”.
- During the Royal Dutch Shell Plc AGM held in May, Peter Voser, the Chief Executive of the oil giant publicly agreed to intervene with a view to resolving outstanding issues with OSSL. So Voser is now personally involved.
- The Garda has appointed Superintendent Thomas Murphy from the Swinford district of County Mayo to investigate the allegations made by OSSL.
- OSSL claim that in 2003 they engaged in a covert operation on behalf of Shell EP Ireland and discovered that the objective of the cover of darkness activity was to fool planning officials and avoid a potential delay of up to a year and considerable embarrassment for Shell. From what I have seen, the mission seems to have been executed like a comedy caper, but the intent was serious and apparently successful.
- OSSL owner Desmond Kane is so appalled by the continuing treacherous treatment his small company has received from Shell, including the failure of the Peter Voser intervention, that there are fears for his health.
“FACE OFF IN POLLATHOMAIS”
This was a particularly violent face off in Pollathomais between lawful protestors on the one side and Shell and its agents, including the Garda led by Superintendent Joe Gannon on the other. As can be seen in a YouTube video, a digger machine used by Shell became the focus of the fracas. It was in regard to this ugly confrontation that Shell EP Ireland CEO Terry Nolan demanded that Neil Rooney, who witnessed events, must falsify his evidence given to the investigation carried out by the Garda Ombudsman. Nolan informed Rooney that his statement had to be changed because the policeman involved in the incident was going to be hung out to dry and he was, as Nolan allegedly put it“our man” and “had to protected at all costs”.
After Rooney consulted with his OSSL colleague, Desmond Kane, over the demand to submit a new statement, he understandably declined to do so. Shell’s whole attitude to OSSL then changed dramatically for the worse. Neil Rooney says: “there is no doubt in my mind that that refusal to lie ‘on demand’ for the Shell CEO cost us our positions and livelihood and we are still paying a massive price.”
INTERVENTION BY PETER VOSER
I supplied OSSL with admittance cards to the May 2013 Royal Dutch Shell Plc AGM with a recommendation that they should raise their dispute with Shell EP Ireland directly with Peter Voser in the Q & A Session. This was after Mr Voser had chosen for several months to ignore emails from OSSL. Now he was publicly cornered into speaking on this potentially explosive subject and quickly agreed to a meeting with a view to resolution. He accepted a condition set by OSSL. Iain Middleton, Royal Dutch Shell Contracting and Procurement Leader for Europe subsequently confirmed in an email to OSSL that he had been asked by Peter Voser to meet with Desmond Kane and Neil Rooney of OSSL in Dublin. OSSL had insisted on someone representing Shell who had not been involved with Shell EP Ireland. The meeting came to nought because Shell wrongly calculated that it could still keep a lid on the scandal.
GARDA/SHELL INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS
The Garda says it has already carried out an internal investigation of OSSL allegations and found no evidence to support them. In other words the Garda investigated the Garda and the Garda conveniently cleared the Garda.
Shell has used precisely the same clever formula.
Shell says that it carried out an internal investigation and found no evidence to support the allegations. Shell investigated Shell and Shell conveniently cleared Shell.
This whitewashing process allows a scandal to be covered up. The end result is a sanitizing statement carefully and deliberately designed to deceive.
Both the Garda and Shell know that in fact the allegations are true.
Now Superintendent Thomas Murphy has approached OSSL saying that he is going to investigate. He has presented himself “as an independent person to the ongoing issues in Co Mayo” with clean hands. I can only guess that he did not receive a share of the free booze received from Shell by hundreds of his fellow County Mayo Garda police officers. With all due respect to Superintendent Murphy, he can hardly be described as “independent”.
However, if Superintendent Murphy decides to press ahead, the first person he should approach is Detective Chief Superintendent John Gilligan. He should ask Gilligan if he personally helped unload a delivery of alcohol at Bellmullet Garda station. (He did) If Gilligan declines to answer without first seeking advice from his lawyer, that alone would speak volumes. Superintendent Murphy may also wish to ask Gilligan and the other Garda who offloaded the free booze, who paid for it, who delivered it and who ended up drinking it?
There is a volume of correspondence between OSSL and Shell when the alcohol issue is discussed and no denial is made by Shell. A classic example is an email exchange that took place on 22 May 2012 between OSSL and the current CEO of Shell EP Ireland, Mr Michael Crothers. OSSL detailed a threat it had allegedly received from a party acting for Shell in relation to the supply of large amounts of alcohol to the Irish Police Force and related falsification of invoices. 22 minutes later OSSL received a reply from Mr Crothers. He did not take issue with or make any denial in respect of the statements about the threat to OSSL, the large amounts of alcohol showered on the Irish Police, nor on the related disguised invoices. Instead he dealt with another matter raised.
It is notable that in a letter dated May 28, 2013 Mr Crothers sent to a member of the Irish Parliament, Ms Clare Daly, Crothers claimed that Shell had arrived at a “full and final settlement” with OSSL in 2012. Clare Daly had written to Mr Crothers on my behalf. If a full and final settlement had been agreed, why did Peter Voser intervene? Why did the recent meeting between OSSL and Iain Middleton take place if all had already been resolved? Mr Crothers mentions in the same letter an invoice raised by OSSL for the alcohol requesting payment from Shell. If the invoice is fraudulent, why has this crime – an attempt to extort money from Shell on false pretenses – not been reported to the Garda?
In his letter Mr Crothers made plain his disdain for the tactics adopted by OSSL perhaps not expecting that OSSL would ever get to see what he had said about them:
Since last August OSSL has sent hundreds of emails, conducted public demonstrations, made statements on Facebook and has engaged with media in relation to its allegations. Emails demanding money have been directed to SEPIL staff and Royal Dutch Shell leaders. Emails have also been sent by OSSL to numerous journalists, with many senior Shell staff blind-copied on these mails. Local residents have also received emails.
Bearing in mind his repeated protestation in the letter that the OSSL allegations had been investigated and no evidence found to support them, Clare Daly was entitled to conclude that OSSL was engaged in a nasty campaign blackening the name of Shell for no good reason.
Why then did Shell decide at the very highest level to subsequently meet with OSSL again when OSSL had no grounds to pursue Shell, were making false accusations against Shell and doing so in an invidious way?
CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH OF DESMOND KANE
Mr Neil Rooney says that his OSSL colleague, Desmond Kane, has a longstanding heart condition and that the sheer frustration and trauma of being stone-walled and threatened by Shell and its agents is having a bad affect on his health. Information about his current condition has been conveyed to Shell which does not seem interested in the slightest.
Shell and its agents have warned Mr Kane and Mr Rooney of the prospect of imprisonment for their involvement in potential criminal activity in carrying out Shell’s instructions. The fact that both individuals have continued to reveal the truth is out of disgust and outrage at the way Shell pressured them into such activity in the first place and then ditched the company after they refused to give false testimony to the Garda Ombudsman investigation.
I have been in direct contact with Alan Shatter, the Irish Minister for Justice.
Given the gravity of these matters what is needed is a genuinely independent inquiry. Not another internal investigation of the Garda by the Garda.
SOME OF THE RECENT CORRESPONDENCE IS SHOWN BELOW.
CLICK TO ENLARGE ON EACH IMAGE.
EMAIL FROM MICHAEL CROTHERS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SHELL EP IRELAND TO TD DEPUTY, CLARE DALY
EMAIL FROM IAIN MIDDLETON OF SHELL TO DESMOND KANE OF OSSL
EMAIL TO OSSL FROM SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MURPHY OF THE GARDA
“…Shell funded alcohol was allegedly distributed to the Police, a gift not conducive to the well-being, safety and demeanor of police officers. The booze was allegedly delivered to senior on duty officers, with delivery being made at Police premises in one instance.”: “Some of the wording on the purported invoice seems strangely reminiscent of the prohibition era in the USA. Somebody trying to conceal the illicit transportation of alcohol.”
EMAIL DATED 15 April 2013 FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO LINDA SZYMANSKI, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC CHIEF ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER.
Dear Linda Szymanski
I sent emails to you on 28 March 2013 and 29 March 2013 (also copied to Michiel Brandjes) concerning allegations made by a former Shell supplier OSSL, that Shell E&P Ireland has engaged in widespread corruption of the Irish Police force. According to OSSL and the related purported invoice dated 28 August 2012, Shell funded alcohol was allegedly distributed to the Police, a gift not conducive to the well-being, safety and demeanor of police officers. The booze was allegedly delivered to senior on duty officers, with delivery being made at Police premises in one instance.
Some of the wording on the purported invoice seems strangely reminiscent of the prohibition era in the USA. Somebody trying to conceal the illicit transportation of alcohol.
I first notified Mr Brandjes of these allegations on 10 September 2012 (also copied to Brian Foley at Shell E&P Ireland).
I sent a related email on 18 September 2012 to Julia Busby, head of Shell Legal, Shell E&P Ireland (also copied to Michiel Brandjes and Royal Dutch Shell PLC Chief Executive Peter Voser).
On 11 November 2012, I sent an email to Michiel Brandjes headed: ” SHELL ALCOHOL FOR CORRIB POLICEMEN”
I have also published and supplied to Shell, numerous related emails allegedly sent to Shell by OSSL.
Neither you or any of your colleagues have replied to any of my emails on this subject.
Mr Brandjes did send me a copy of an email he sent to former Shell official Mr. Bill Campbell on another matter (the screw-up in the Arctic).
But this subject remains absolutely taboo.
The same deafening silence seems to apply to police officers identified on the purported invoice dated 28 August 2012.
No accusations that the invoice is not authentic and the allegations false. No threats of litigation. No denials. Nothing.
When the stakes are so high – an alleged corruption scandal involving hundreds of Irish police officers – how long can that situation hold?
It is alleged by OSSL that there are other beneficiaries of Shell’s generosity.
How will it reflect on you Linda, bearing in mind your job title, if you fail to act?
PS. As you are probably aware, I have brought this matter to the attention of the Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter TD. I did at least receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
COMMENT POSTED ON SHELL BLOG BY “GEORGE HAMILTON”
Police alcohol . John you will hear no denials because the details you have are exactly correct the garda locally and nationally are disgusted by Shells handling of this matter they feel for the people caught in the middle but can’t afford to speak
COMMENT FROM A SHELL RELATED SOURCE
I don’t have any particular knowledge in the area, but it would seem to me that the UK Bribery Act, and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Dodd-Frank amendment (FCPA) would apply to the Irish saga.
In both cases there are channels through which whistle blower reports can be submitted. In the case of the FCPA the rewards for whistleblowers are very large.
There is a five year statute of limitations: perhaps Shell is relying on this to save them?
By John Donovan
We have received a copy of an email allegedly sent today to Brian Foley, who according to OSSL, has been the senior Shell contracts manager on the Corrib Gas project for the last ten years. The email was also allegedly copied to Royal Dutch Shell Plc CEO Peter Voser and Michael Crothers, the CEO of Shell E&P Ireland.
The email repeats the claim that Shell sent Corrib auditors KPMG to OSSL offices warning “about imprisonment if we disclosed the police alcohol matter.”
OSSL alleges that it played a “Mr Fixit” role for Shell distributing gifts/bribes to ease the progress of the controversial Corrib Gas Project.
I have republished below a related purported OSSL invoice that we first published on 28 March 2013.
If any of the various parties named on the purported invoice, including senior Irish police officers, are prepared to go on the record stating that the invoice is fake, we will publish that information and cease covering this story until an investigation has taken place.
OSSL alleges that hundreds of Irish police officers were the beneficiaries of Shell’s alleged corruption – a generous supply of free alcohol.
Environmental campaigners who have protested against the Corrib project have long alleged that the Irish police have acted as an off-shoot of Shell security.
HENCE THE OSSL ALLEGATIONS ARE VERY SERIOUS.
The Irish government is aware of this alleged scandal. The Irish police is aware of the allegations. Many Shell employees, managers, officials and executive directors are said to be involved in or have knowledge of the alleged scandal and/or associated alleged cover-up. KPMG must be aware of their alleged role.
I am not aware of any denial issued by any of these parties regarding the authenticity of the alcohol invoice.
How hard can it be to establish whether the all-important invoice displayed below is a fake or authentic?
Meanwhile Shell attempts to weaken laws that will reveal such payments
Proceedings in a recent UK High Court case have revealed that Royal Dutch Shell plc was aware that a US$1.1 billion payment made by Shell and Italian firm Eni S.p.A. would end up in an account controlled by Dan Etete, a former Petroleum Minister of Nigeria, who was convicted of money laundering in France in 2007. Furthermore, testimony heard during the trial indicates that an official from Shell previously negotiated directly with Etete over “iced champagne”. An email cited in the trial also mentions that the Shell official would consult with someone in The Hague called ‘Peter’ over the terms of a potential deal. Global Witness has written to Shell’s CEO, Peter Voser, to ask whether he is the ‘Peter’ mentioned in the email, but has not received a response to the question.
Meanwhile, Shell continues to lobby against new legislation currently being discussed in the EU that would bring much-needed transparency to payments between oil companies and governments. Shell is also part of a US lawsuit aimed at striking-out existing law that requires payment disclosure by US-listed extractive companies . “This scandal demonstrates precisely why we need the new transparency laws being finalized in Europe that require companies to disclose their payments right down to the project level – with no exemption for any country,” said Simon Taylor, director of Global Witness. “In light of Shell’s behavior in Nigeria, it is difficult not to conclude that it wishes to keep its deals in the dark.”
The High Court case, Energy Venture Partners v Malabu Oil & Gas, has been brought by a Nigerian consultant who alleges that he was not paid by Malabu for his work in helping to arrange the US$1.1 billion deal for oil block OPL245 in 2011. OPL245 has been the subject of controversy ever since it was awarded to Malabu in 1998, not least because Etete awarded the block to Malabu while Petroleum Minister of Nigeria. Etete is widely believed to control Malabu, although he has denied being Malabu’s owner, maintaining in court that he was employed by the company as a consultant only after he left office.
Etete is also controversial because he was found guilty in France in 2007 of money laundering, a conviction that was upheld in 2009. During the recent High Court case, testimony was heard that Etete had accepted bribes and used aliases to hide his ownership of money which he then used to buy expensive properties in France. Despite the fact that Etete’s conviction was upheld, the court heard that an official from Shell had lunch with Etete around December 2009. In an email describing this meeting, the official said that the two men were getting along very well personally, enjoying “lunch and lots of iced champagne.”
The email also says that Etete had requested some initial figures from Shell on what it was willing to pay Malabu for OPL245, and that “Peter has to talk to The Hague and we will come back with a figure.” Global Witness has asked Shell whether the reference to ‘Peter’ may be a reference to its CEO, Peter Voser. Shell’s 2010 annual report appears to list no other senior executive called Peter who might be in a position to make decisions about negotiations of the size being discussed. If the ‘Peter’ named is in fact Peter Voser, this would indicate that the company’s most senior figure was aware that Shell was in negotiation with convicted felon Etete. Global Witness put this and other points to Shell in a letter addressed to Mr Voser: Shell did not provide a direct response to these questions.
During the court proceedings, it was alleged that Shell eventually broke off direct negotiations with Etete when it found out that the son of General Sani Abacha, the dictator of Nigeria until his death in 1998, had claimed that he was the rightful owner of a percentage of Malabu, which was set up as a limited Nigerian company during his father’s rule.
Following more negotiations, in April 2011 Shell and Eni agreed to pay US$1.1 billion to the Government of Nigeria, which itself had an agreement to pay exactly the same amount to Malabu. Global Witness believes that this was structured primarily as a way of allowing Shell and Eni to claim that it had not struck a deal with Etete. The High Court proceedings and other evidence seen by Global Witness reveal that, in reality, Shell and its partner in this deal, Eni, were aware and in agreement that the deal was for the benefit of Malabu, and had met with Etete face-to-face on several occasions.
Shell chose not to reply to Global Witness’ specific questions on alleged meetings with Etete and the knowledge of its senior management of those meetings. Instead, it responded by saying that Shell reached a settlement with the Government of Nigeria. In Global Witness’ opinion this is disingenuous, because the deal to acquire OPL245 resulted in a huge payment that Shell knew was ultimately going to Etete’s company. Shell added in relation to the allegations made in the High Court case: “we can confirm that neither [Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary] SNEPCo nor any other Shell company is party to those proceedings and, as a consequence, we cannot comment on any statements or allegations made in the course of those proceedings.”
Simon Taylor of Global Witness commented: “Shell and Eni’s claim that they did not do a deal with Malabu fails to address the question of their knowledge of where the payment was ultimately going. They also fail to explain their apparent extensive direct dealings with Etete. Both companies appeared to enjoy rather lavish meals with Etete, and ended up taking part in an arrangement that, in the absence of a better explanation, looks like an attempt to conceal their US$1.1 billion deal with Abacha’s money laundering convicted oil minister. Both companies should be laughed out of the building if they attempt to challenge the new EU Directive on transparency or the existing US transparency laws.”
Contact: Simon Taylor: mobile: +44 (0)7957 142 121; or Thomas Mayne: landline: +44 (0)20 7492 5864, or mobile: +44 (0)7939 460357; or Brendan O’Donnell: landline +44(0)207492 5898, or mobile: +44(0)7912 517 128
 In addition to Shell’s opposition to EU efforts to require project-by-project reporting as part of the proposed Transparency Directive, as a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the company is supporting a lawsuit filed by the API that seeks to completely strike out Provision 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act that was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010.
Global Witness investigates and campaigns to prevent natural resource-related conflict and corruption and associated environmental and human rights abuses
Printed below is a self-explanatory email I sent on 11 November 2012 to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
I sent him further information earlier today including a related email sent to RDS Plc Chief Executive Mr Peter Voser.
I also made reference to the copy of a letter from a solicitor that has been supplied to me.
The solicitor acts for clients in County Mayo concerned by any implication that they have been involved in any corrupt activity allegedly sponsored by Shell.
MY EMAIL TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES: 11 NOVEMBER 2012
From: John Donovan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: SHELL ALCOHOL FOR CORRIB POLICEMEN?
Date: 11 November 2012 15:01:19 GMT
Dear Mr Brandjes
I have forwarded to you separately an email I received today, dated 9 November 2012, purportedly sent to Mr Mike Crothers, the Chief Executive of Shell EP Ireland and copied to your colleague Mr Peter Voser, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to the Irish Police, the Garda.
The email was sent by OSSL, an Irish supplier to the Corrib Gas Project. The company has previously accused Shell of instructing them to make corrupt payments/gifts to third parties on behalf of Shell.
They claim that to achieve this objective, invoices were falsified on the express instruction of Shell EP Ireland.
OSSL further allege that threats of dire consequences have been made against them by Shell. The company notified you of this by email on 11 October 2012.
The latest allegation is that the local Irish Police involved in the Corrib Gas Project were supplied with alcohol by Shell EP Ireland. It says that there is proof of this in an invoice supplied to Shell.
I can understand why there has been a delay in calling in the police because the local population seems to have little faith in the impartiality of the Garda. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that the local police are in the pockets of Shell.
This perhaps explains why Shell whistle blowers on the Corrib project – the so called Celtic Tiger Five – did not step forward to give evidence to the Garda after alleging they had received death threats from Shell. As you may recall, we published a considerable number of Shell internal emails leaked to us containing confidential information highly embarrassing to Shell.
If any of the claimed emails are fake, then we will not publish anything further received from OSSL. I do, however ,believe they are genuine.
Please let me know by 4pm Monday 12 November. We will also publish unedited any related comment Shell wishes to make.
No problem if you need more time to investigate and respond.
Just let me know by 4pm that you will be looking into the matter before replying.
Although Mr Brandjes replied to a subsequent email from me on another matter, he has not taken up my invitation as set out above, neither has he taken issue with the authenticity of the relevant emails.
The following is the content of an email sent by OSSL on 11 November 2012 to the solicitor referred to above.
EMAIL FROM OSSL TO A SOLICITOR: SENT 11 NOVEMBER 2012
Thank you for your letter
It appears to us that you have misread the situation .
OSSL was instructed by SHELL to pay for goods and services supplied or carried out by third party companies locally in Erris .
We informed your clients and others in the Bellanaboy area the Rossport area and Glengad that in an accounting instruction from Shell we were told to transfer the invoices in a disguised manner to a company called Roadbridge stating that Shell management were getting very worried that they would be seen to be favouring some landowners over others which we have been informed by Shell would contradict all other agreements with landowners who were not in receipt of “special favours “.
Your clients and fifteen others fall into the special favours category ,OSSL simply informed them that SHELL had not reimbursed OSSL in full for the money which it had paid out to third parties on your clients and Shells joint venture.
This money has not been fully reimbursed.
When we entered a long campaign of action to get our money back we were asked by Shell in Holland to travel to London to meet with Frances van Dam of their business and ethics department BID we were also asked to remain silent about the matter.
Some time later we were informed by van Dam that in fact none of what we had disclosed to her was factual , and that no Special Favours or home improvements or cash payments had ever been carried out or supplied to your clients and others stating that “any such works or favours would be corrupt and illegal and would jeopardise the whole project ”
Not even your clients would claim that this never happened , would they?
Apart from the missing money still outstanding we have been informed by Michael Crothers that we were dismissed from the project because of our compliance with your clients requests to Shell for work to be carried out and goods supplied which they subsequently wanted to distance themselves from.
In case you or your clients don’t understand what we are saying be clear that three decent people lost their lively hood over this matter .
Crothers held his head in shame when the facts were laid out to him and he is clear about what went on.
Shell does have a track record of involvement in corruption scandals – see examples at the foot of this article – but that obviously does not mean it is automatically guilty of the allegations on this occasion.
I have no idea why Shell has decided against commenting.
SHELL INVOLVEMENT IN PAST CORRUPTION SCANDALS
Executive Intelligence Review: Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City: June 22, 2007
Comment in House of Commons by Vince Camble MP, former Chief Economist of Shell (Debate on the Al-Yamamah BAE Fraud/Corruption controversy and associated money laundering) 7 Feb 2007
Shell in U.S. Gov. Sex, Drugs and Corruption Scandal: 24 January 2009
Shell to pay $48m Nigerian bribe fine: Daily Telegraph 4 November 2010
These companies, including Shell, admitted they “approved of or condoned the payment of bribes on their behalf in Nigeria and falsely recorded the bribe payments made on their behalf as legitimate business expenses in their corporate books, records and accounts”.
Posted Date: 13 November 2012