Transportation and Logistic Consulting SA v Schlumberger Seaco Inc

A payment made to a customs administration is not a bribe merely because it is paid in cash or negotiated at a local administrative level. The court must identify the payment’s purpose and recipient. A payment made pursuant to negotiations over liability for customs infractions, acknowledged by an official receipt, and intended to settle or mitigate an administrative fine is not, without more, a corrupt payment to conceal violations or induce breach of lawful duty. The fact that a later public official labels the payment a bribe does not establish that characterisation, particularly where that official lacked legal authority and gave no tenable reason for it.

The claimants provided logistics and marine agency services connected with operations at Luba Free Port in Equatorial Guinea. Following an unauthorised entry into a bonded warehouse, the Luba customs administration negotiated and imposed a cash payment of CFA 37,000,000, which was paid against an official receipt.

The defendants took no active part in the trial. The agreed issue was whether the payment was a bribe made with corrupt intent to influence the customs administration to conceal the defendants’ violations of the CEMAC Customs Code. The issue also arose against the background of a subsequent demand by the Prime Minister for a further CFA 100,000,000, said to be payable because the first payment was a bribe.

1. Issue resolved for the claimants. The defendants’ absence from the trial did not prevent determination of the agreed issue. The claimants were not obliged to disprove an unsupported allegation of bribery, but it was in both parties’ interests that the issue be determined after as full a hearing as circumstances permitted.

2. The payment was made to the Luba customs administration, not to an individual. Under the law of Equatorial Guinea, liability for customs infractions could be negotiated. The evidence showed that the claimants’ manager negotiated at the Luba level, under Malabo supervision, and secured agreement on the final sum. The payment was made in cash as required and was acknowledged by an official receipt. There was no suggestion that payment in cash was unlawful.

3. The alleged violations were already notorious. The proposed characterisation therefore involved no payment to conceal them. The only conceivable corrupt purpose would have been to reduce the fine by bribing the person imposing it. It was illogical to characterise the punishment itself as the bribe, and there was no evidence that the payment benefited a third party.

4. The subsequent Malabo fine did not support the allegation. The Prime Minister had no legal authority to adjudicate on the nature of the Luba payment or to impose that fine. No tenable reason was advanced for the accusation. Possible explanations for the demand, including an attempt by a recipient to retain part of the money or dissatisfaction with its amount, gave no support to the bribery case.

5. The court found nothing to support the suggestion that the Luba payment was a bribe and resolved the issue in favour of the claimants.