Court hears prosecution demand for 12.6m euros confiscation in Russian bribery case
Prosecutors at the Ghent Court of Appeal are seeking a 600,000 euro fine and the confiscation of 12.6 million euros from the Belgian dredging group DEME in connection with alleged large-scale bribery relating to dredging works at the Russian port of Sabetta.
A lower court had previously ruled that DEME should face no penalties due to breaches of the right to a fair trial. However, the prosecution criticised this decision as too lenient, arguing that any privacy violations pale in comparison to the scale of the alleged corruption.
The case centres on a 2013 tender for dredging works at Sabetta, home to one of the world’s largest LNG terminals. DEME secured the contract through its Russian joint venture, Mordraga, while competitor Jan De Nul filed a criminal complaint in 2016, suspecting a conflict of interest involving an intermediary.
Evidence later obtained with the FBI's assistance described a bribery scheme allegedly involving Sofia M-N, a former DEME consultant, who is accused of receiving more than 4.18 million euros through offshore entities linked to the company. Her counterpart at USK Most, the Russian prime contractor, allegedly received a similar sum.
Investigators claim that former DEME CEO Alain Bernard and other company figures were directly implicated, with a total of 12.6 million euros transferred to five beneficiary companies - about 3 per cent of the 420 million euro contract value.
Seven individuals and three DEME-related companies were eventually referred for trial on charges including forgery, the use of forged documents and active public bribery. Jan De Nul later withdrew as a civil party, while DEME filed its own complaint, alleging that the emails provided as evidence had been unlawfully obtained.
In 2023, the Ghent Criminal Court dismissed the prosecution case, ruling that a large body of emails had been obtained illegally and criticising the investigation for its “tunnel vision”. The court found violations of privacy and communication confidentiality and ruled that any evidence derived from the disputed emails was inadmissible. Consequently, all defendants were acquitted.
The prosecution has appealed, insisting that the lower court’s reasoning contradicts established case law from the Court of Cassation. They reject the claim that the emails were obtained through hacking by Jan De Nul, maintaining that the information was merely used for intelligence purposes.
Prosecutors argue that a conviction would be both legally sound and just. The defence is now presenting its arguments, with the Court of Appeal having set aside a full day for the hearing.
#FlandersNewsService | © BELGA PHOTO JONAS ROOSENS
Related news
