|
Letter from Mr Stuart Benson to Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
You have written concerning Mr Betterman and
the evidence he has submitted to you. In the light of your recent
letter to me stating that you intended to review all evidence
submitted to you on or shortly after 12 February, I have embarked
on a similar exercise to the extent that I am able to do so. Obviously,
I do not know the identities of all witnesses from whom you have
taken evidence, nor the full extent of the evidence they have
given. What does however become immediately apparent is that
the overwhelming majority of those appearing before you or volunteering
evidence, at least in relation to Mr Howard, have vested interest
either in concealing any possible wrongdoing, or in seeking to
destroy the credibility of Mr Al-Fayed. The Powells, for example,
will have vested interest in concealing a possible breach by
Charles Powell the Official Secrets Act, whilst Mr Rowland, and
those who worked directly for him, will not want any investigation
into their conduct regarding the enquiry by DTI Inspectors or
the circumstances under which such Inspectors were appointed.
Similarly, as is demonstrated by the submission
of evidence from Mr Betterman, there are those who are motivated
to harm Mr Al-Fayed for reasons unconnected with your investigation
and who will have little if any regard for the truth. I am preparing
a summary of my comments which I will submit to you shortly (together
with other material and comments), although in view of the contents
of my earlier letter to you today regarding Mr Rowland's public
circulation of evidence, I will defer doing so until I have received
and considered your response.
Meanwhile, however, I have asked Mr Macnamara
to prepare statements relating to Mr Betterman in order to correct
any false impression you may have gained from Mr Betterman's comments.
Those statements should now be with you, inadvertently enclosed
(for which I apologise), under cover of my letter to you yesterday.
PS: Whilst writing, I enclose a copy of a letter
sent in identical terms to each and every member of the Select
Committee.[10]
11
February 1997
Statement of John Macnamara, Director
of Security, Harrods Limited
I have been shown a letter from Christoph Bettermann
dated 3 February 1997 addressed to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards in which he described Mr Al-Fayed as
a compulsive liar and that his close employees seeking to corroborate
him should be treated with the greatest circumspection. As one
of those close employees I wish to reply to some of the statements
contained in Mr Bettermann's letter. It is not surprising that
Mr Bettermann has volunteered to Sir Gordon Downey what he believes
to be damaging evidence against Mr Al-Fayed. Such is his vitriol
that he has also provided false statements to Vanity Fair, a
magazine which is seeking to defend a libel action brought by
Mr Al-Fayed.
Mr Bettermann stated that Peter Bolliger resigned
as Managing Director of Harrods in 1994 having been accused of
incompetence, dishonesty and dereliction of duty. He further stated
to that to the best of his knowledge there was no truth in these
charges.
The brief facts of Mr Bolliger's departure are
that having received a final written warning he was formally
dismissed. This was as a result of incompetence, abuse of position
and dereliction of duty. It had been discovered among other things
that Mr Bolliger had employed his daughter's South African fiancé
within the Company in clear contravention of immigration laws.
He had completely mishandled a £3.3 million modernisation
plan. Additionally he had abused his position to make protracted
private telephone calls to South Africa.
Contrary to what Mr Bettermann has implied,
Mr Bolliger was allowed to leave quietly and to have his colleagues
believe that he resigned voluntarily. Mr Bolliger however, chose
to go to the Press and caused an inflammatory article to be published
in the Mail on Sunday on 24 April 1994 (copy attached)
1. As a result of that article, the criminal actions of Mr Bolliger
which until then had been suppressed, we were compelled to report
the matters to police but unfortunately Mr Bolliger had already
left the Country and police were unable to interview him.
Mr Al-Fayed then issued a Press Statement describing
the true reasons for Mr Bolliger's departure (copy of Daily
Express dated 25 April 1994 attached) 1.
10 February 1997
Statement of John Macnamara, Director
of Security, Harrods Limited
I have been shown a letter from Christoph Bettermann
dated 3 February 1997 addressed to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards in which he described Mr Al-Fayed as
a compulsive liar and that his close employees seeking to corroborate
him should be treated with the greatest circumspection. As one
of those close employees I wish to reply to some of the statements
contained in Mr Bettermann's letter. It is not surprising that
Mr Bettermann has volunteered to Sir Gordon Downey what he believes
to be damaging evidence against Mr Al-Fayed. Such is his vitriol
that he has also provided false statements to Vanity Fair, a
magazine which is seeking to defend a libel action brought by
Mr Al-Fayed.
Mr Bettermann states in his letter to Sir Gordon
Downey that, "Mr Graham Jones, a House of Fraser Director
left in 1990 followed by trumped-up charges". Firstly, Mr
Bettermann can have no understanding of the circumstances surrounding
Mr Jones departure and secondly he can have no idea of the criminal
investigation which culminated in complaint being made to Surrey
Constabulary of the criminal conspiracy between Mr Jones and
Directors of Modena Garage Ltd.
Mr Graham Jones was employed by House of Fraser
between 5 October 1987 and 31 January 1990 both as Chief Financial
Officer and Director of Corporate Strategy and Planning. On 29
January 1990, two days before Mr Jones employment was terminated,
complaint was made to Guildford Police with full supporting report
and documentation dealing with the acquisition by House of Fraser
of Modena Garage, East Horsely, Surrey, which provided clear
evidence of fraud. The investigation was undertaken by Guildford
CID who concentrated their enquiries on the main perpetrators:
Mr Simon Greenwood, ex-Managing Director, Modena
Garage
Mr James Mayne, Chairman, Modena Garage
Mr Graham Jones, ex-House of Fraser, Chief Financial
Officer Prior to his arrest, Graham Jones lost no time in
contacting Lonrho and between April 1990 and September 1990 provided
confidential information about the financial, trading and other
affairs of House of Fraser and its associated companies for the
purpose of assisting Lonrho to publish a document entitled "A
Financial Assessment of the Consolidated Personal and Commercial
Interests of the Fayeds". This document was widely circulated
by Lonrho. Graham Jones was corruptly paid over £0.5 million
for his Services by Lonrho. Graham Jones was later sued by Mr
Al-Fayed and paid a six figure sum in damages as well as a full
and unreserved apology to the Fayeds for his actions which he
accepts were utterly wrong and without justification. (See attached,
copy of Statement of Claim and Sunday Times article[11]
dated 15 October 1995).
During the currency of the police enquiry Graham
Jones attempted to flee the Country but was arrested at Heathrow
Airport by Surrey Police (see Daily Express article 1990).
1 He was released on Police bail after which he fled to Australia
which influenced the CPS decision not to bring criminal charges
against him. His co-conspirator, Simon Greenwood was charged
with fraud and sentenced to three years imprisonment (see letter
from Surrey Constabulary 1991). Contrary to what Mr Bettermann
may state or believe Graham Jones was arrested for his part in
a very substantial fraud.
10 February 1997
Letter from Chief Superintendent, Surrey
Constabulary, to Mr John Macnamara
Re. Modena Engineering Limited John Simon Preston
Greenwood I refer to a recent telephone conversation
between my Detective Sergeant Bobrzyk and yourself in respect
of the above. My officer, has submitted a report to the Fraud
Investigation Group, 10 Furnival Street, London, for their consideration
as to what course of action to be taken in respect of: -
1.
The acquisition of Modena Engineering Limited by the House of
Fraser and, 2. The fraudulent dealings of Greenwood.
They have considered the evidence against your
ex-employee, Graham Jones and John Mayne, the ex-Modena Chairman,
and are of the view that there is insufficient for the purposes
of prosecution. They have, however, advised that the enquiry
should be restricted to the activities in respect of Greenwood,
and are satisfied that a case is justified and it is likely to
lead to a successful and substantial prosecution.
Subsequently Greenwood has been charged in respect
of several matters. He appeared at Guildford Magistrates' Court
on Friday, 31 May 1991, having been charged with one count of
fraudulent trading, which relates to Wingetts Limited, three
cases of theft, which relate to three vehicles belonging to Modena
Engineering Limited and ten cases relating to false accounting,
again they relate to individual vehicles that were sold by various
dealers and Greenwood to Modena Engineering Limited.
Greenwood, since his appearance at Court, is presently
on bail to reappear at Guildford Magistrates' Court on Thursday,
29 August 1991.
In view of the fact that Greenwood's activities
may have affected the fortunes of Modena we are still pursuing
House of Fraser's complaint and will keep you notified of anything
that may come to light.
Trusting this will be of some assistance to
you.
6 June 1991
CH 1994 H. No. 66
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN
HOUSE
OF FRASER HOLDINGS PLC
Plaintiff
and
GRAHAM JONES
Defendant
To
the Defendant Graham Jones of 28 Lodge Street, Glebe, New
South Wales, 2037 Australia.
This Writ of Summons has been issued
against you by the above named Plaintiff in respect of the claim
set out overleaf.
Within 25 days after the service of the Writ
on you, counting the day of service, you must either satisfy the
claim or return to the Court Office mentioned below the accompanying
Acknowledgement of Service stating therein whether you
intend to contest these proceedings.
If you fail to satisfy the claim or to return
the Acknowledgment within the time stated, or if you return the
Acknowledgment without stating therein an intention to contest
the proceedings, the Plaintiff may proceed with the action and
Judgment may be entered against you forthwith without further
notice.
Issued from the Chancery Chambers of the High
Court this 7 day of January 1994.
Note: This Writ may not
be served later than 4 calendar months or if leave is required
to effect service out of jurisdiction 6 months beginning with
that date unless renewed by Order of the Court.
Important Directions
for Acknowledgment of Service are given with the accompanying
form.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Defendant was a director of the Plaintiff
between 5 October 1987 and 31 January 1990. Between 5 October
1987 and 31 August 1989, the Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff
as its Chief Financial Officer. Between 1 September 1989 and
31 January 1990, the Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff as
its Director of Corporate Strategy and Planning. Further, pursuant
to and for the better fulfilment of his duties as an employee
of the Plaintiff, the Defendant was a director of a number of
subsidiaries and associated companies of the Plaintiff, namely
House of Fraser Plc from 22 October 1987 to 31 January 1990 (as
an alternate director for Mr M Al-Fayed), of Harrods Limited
from 18 November 1987 to 31 January 1990, of Dickins & Jones
Limited from 22 October 1987 to 19 June 1989, of Turnbull &
Asser (Holdings) Limited from 22 October 1987 to 31 January 1990,
of House of Fraser (Shoes) Limited from 22 October 1987 to 31
January 1990, of House of Fraser Property Investment plc from
15 March 1988 to 31 January 1990, of Fraser Financial Services
Limited from 22 October 1987 to 1 December 1989 and of Harrods
Estates Office (an unlimited liability company) from 13 January
1988 to 31 January 1990.
2. During the course of and for the purpose
of his said directorships and his said employment, the Defendant
regularly received information concerning the financial, trading
and other affairs of the Plaintiff, its subsidiaries and its
associated companies which was confidential to the Plaintiff and
the said companies.
3. In the premises the Defendant was under a
duty to the Plaintiff and to the said companies not to disclose
any such confidential information to any person who was not authorised
to receive it by the Plaintiff or the said companies.
4. Further or alternatively, by an agreement
in writing contained in a letter from the Plaintiff to the Defendant
dated 8 February 1990, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed
that the Defendant's employment by the Plaintiff would terminate
with effect from 31 January 1990. It was an express term of the
said agreement that the Defendant covenanted that save as may
be required by law or for the purposes of taking professional
advice in connection with the contents of the said letter, not
at any time to divulge or disclose to any person any confidential
information or trade secret concerning the Plaintiff, its associated
companies or its shareholders which had come into his possession
during the course of his employment with the Plaintiff and that
he would not use any such information or trade secret in any
manner which may cause injury or harm to the Plaintiff, any of
its associated companies or its shareholders.
5. Wrongfully and in breach of confidence and
in breach of contract the Defendant has disclosed confidential
information concerning the financial, trading and other affairs
of the Plaintiff, its subsidiary and associated companies and
shareholders to Lonhro Plc ("Lonhro") and/or has used
such confidential information so as to cause injury or harm to
the Plaintiff.
PARTICULARS
5.1 Between April 1990 at the latest and September
1990 the Defendant provided confidential information about the
financial, trading and other affairs of the Plaintiff, its subsidiary
and associated companies and shareholders to Lonrho for the purpose
of assisting Lonrho to publish a document entitled "A Financial
Assessment of the Consolidated Personal and Commercial Interests
of The Fayeds" ("the Financial Assessment"). The
Financial Assessment was widely circulated by Lonrho on or about
5 September 1990. A copy of the Financial Assessment together
with its covering letter is appended hereto as Appendix 1. The
markings on the said copy indicate the information contained
in the Financial Assessment which (1) was known to the Defendant
by reason of his aforesaid employment by and directorships of
the Plaintiff and its subsidiary and associated companies and
(2) which could not have become known to Lonrho from any other
source ("the GJ Information").
Further, during the period between April and
September 1990, the Defendant provided substantial assistance
for reward to Lonrho in a campaign which was then being undertaken
by Lonrho against the Plaintiff, its subsidiary and associated
companies and shareholders to damage and discredit the Plaintiff,
its subsidiary and associated companies and shareholders by means
of harmful publicity. The Plaintiff will rely on this fact in
support of its contention that the Defendant provided the GJ
Information to Lonrho. In particular the Plaintiff relies on
the following facts and matters.
5.1.1 In or about April 1990, the Defendant
provided Lonrho with a one page handwritten memorandum containing
confidential financial information relating to the Plaintiff and/or
House of Fraser Plc.
5.1.2 In or about April 1990, the Defendant
provided Lonrho with a copy of a draft of a letter dated 23 April
1990 from the Defendant to the Governor of the Bank of England.
The said letter contained confidential information concerning
deposits made at Harrods Bank. The Plaintiff is the ultimate United
Kingdom holding company of the company which operates Harrods
Bank.
5.1.3 In or about late April 1990, Lonrho paid
the Defendant £100,000 in return for "his assistance
with House of Fraser matters". The said payment was made
by sterling draft payable to a bank in Liechtenstein for the
Defendant's account. The Plaintiff will rely on a Lonrho internal
memorandum from T J Robinson to R E Whitten both of whom were
directors of Lonrho.
5.1.4 In or about May 1990, the Defendant provided
Lonrho with a copy of a letter from the Clerk of the House of
Commons Trade and Industry to the Defendant dated 24 May 1990
concerning the Defendant's letter to the Governor of the Bank
of England dated 23 April 1990.
5.1.5 In or about May or June 1990, the Defendant
provided Lonrho with a copy of a letter from the Plaintiff to
the Defendant dated 31 May 1990, which, inter alia, drew
the Defendant's attention to the covenant referred to in paragraph
4 above.
5.1.6 In or about May or June 1990, the Defendant
provided Lonrho with a 4 page hand written memorandum containing
confidential information about the relationship between the Plaintiff
and Mohamed Fayed, a shareholder in the Plaintiff, and Lord MacAlpine.
5.1.7 In or about June 1990, the Defendant provided
Lonrho with a 4 page hand written memorandum containing confidential
information about the bank facilities available to the Plaintiff
and two of its subsidiaries.
5.1.8 Between 4 and 15 June 1990, the Defendant:
5.1.8.1 Held discussions with T J Robinson ("Robinson")
a director of Lonrho and P Taylor, a senior accountant of Lonrho,
to assist them with the production of the Financial Assessment,
in particular for the purpose of collating information to show
that the Plaintiff was in serious financial difficulty, recording
statistical data in relation thereto, arranging the presentation
of such information and data and recording the sources of such
information.
5.1.8.2 Spoke to R Hughes, a partner in Price
Waterhouse, the Plaintiff's auditors, and gave him information
about the finances and trade of the Plaintiff. The Defendant
did not disclose during the said discussion that he had agreed
to assist Lonrho for reward to damage and discredit the Plaintiff.
5.1.8.3 Met P Filmer, of the Bank of England
Banking Supervision Department and sought to persuade the Bank
of England to withdraw the banking licence granted to Harrods
Bank. The Defendant did not disclose during the said discussion
that he had agreed to assist Lonrho for reward to damage and discredit
the Plaintiff.
5.1.8.4 Met E Cole, the Director of Specialised
Financing of Midland Montagu Ltd (now called Samuel Montagu &
Co Ltd), the leader of the syndicate of banks which had provided
finance to the Plaintiff and provided him with confidential financial
information concerning the Plaintiff with a view to influencing
the syndicate to withdraw the banking facilities available to
the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not disclose during the said
discussion that he had agreed to assist Lonrho for reward to damage
and discredit the Plaintiff.
5.1.8.5 Met C Badcock, the Director of Corporate
Banking of Midland Bank plc and provided him with confidential
financial information concerning the Plaintiff with a view to
influencing Midland Bank Plc to withdraw the banking facilities
available to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant offered
his services to arrange and manage the disposal of the Plaintiff's
assets if that became necessary following such a withdrawal of
facilities. The Defendant did not disclose during the said discussion
that he had agreed to assist Lonrho for reward to damage and
discredit the Plaintiff.
5.1.8.6 Met the House of Commons Trade and Industry
Committee and provided it with financial information concerning
the Plaintiff and informed it that the Plaintiff's banking facilities
would be withdrawn during the next 18 months. The Defendant did
not disclose during the said discussion that he had agreed to
assist Lonrho for reward to damage and discredit the Plaintiff.
5.1.9 By a memorandum dated 3 July 1990, the
Defendant informed Lonrho about his said activities between 4
and 15 June 1990. The Plaintiff will rely on the said memorandum
in support of the matters pleaded at paragraph 5.1.8 above.
5.1.10 The Plaintiff will further rely on the
said memorandum as containing admissions by the Defendant.
5.1.10.1 That the Defendant's objective was
to assist Lonrho to bring about the financial collapse of the
Plaintiff.
5.1.10.2 That the Defendant and Lonrho intended
that the publication of the Financial Assessment should cause
the Plaintiff's banks to lose confidence in the Plaintiff.
5.1.10.3 That it was the Defendant's objective
to cause the Bank of England to withdraw the banking licence
of Harrods Bank.
5.1.10.4 That the Defendant believed that the
publication of the Financial Assessment would further that objective.
5.1.11 In about June 1990, the Defendant provided
Lonrho with a copy of a letter from the Clerk of the House of
Commons Trade and Industry Committee to the Defendant dated 27
June 1990. The letter sought evidence from the Defendant about,
inter alia, Plaintiff's financial affairs.
5.1.12 In about July or August 1990, the Defendant
provided Lonrho with a four page hand written memorandum containing
confidential information about Harrods Bank.
5.1.13 By an agreement in writing dated 6 February
1991 the Defendant agreed to provide unspecified services on
a part time basis to African Investment Trust Limited ("AIT")
(a member of the Lonrho group) or any parent, subsidiary or associated
company of AIT nominated by AIT. The said agreement provided inter
alia: 5.1.13.1 That AIT had paid the Defendant an initial
fee of £25,000; 5.1.13.2 That AIT would pay the Defendant
£15,000 per month from 1 December 1990 until 28 February
1991 (three months); 5.1.13.3 That AIT would pay the Defendant
£7,500 per month from 1 March 1991 until 31 August 1991
(six months); 5.1.13.4 That AIT would pay the Defendant £5,000
per month from 1 September 1991 to 29 February 1992 (six months).
In the premises the Defendant has received
£145,000 pursuant to the said agreement. The Plaintiff will
contend that the said amount was paid wholly or partly in payment
for the confidential information which the Defendant provided
to Lonrho as aforesaid and as further particularised in paragraphs
5.3 and 5.4 below.
5.1.14 In or about March 1991, the Defendant
received £10,418.07 from AIT in reimbursement of legal fees
incurred by the Defendant. The said legal fees were reimbursed
by AIT because the Defendant incurred them as a result of travelling
to England from his home in Australia during 1990 to provide confidential
information to Lonrho as aforesaid.
5.1.15 The Defendant received £100,000
on 25 June 1991 and £200,000 on 26th June 1991 from Lonrho
or a member of the Lonrho group wholly or partly in payment for
the confidential information which the Defendant provided to
Lonrho as aforesaid and as further particularised in paragraphs
5.3 and 5.4 below. The best particulars the Plaintiff can give
of the manner of the said payments prior to discovery is that
the said payments were made by sterling draft payable to a bank
in Liechtenstein for the Defendant's account.
5.2 The Plaintiff will rely on the matters pleaded
in paragraphs 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.6, 5.1.7, 5.1.8.1, 5.1.8.4, 5.1.8.5
and 5.1.12 above as further particulars of the Defendant's breach
of confidence.
5.3 On a date unknown to the Plaintiff during
1990, the Defendant provided Lonrho with a copy of a memorandum
which he had written in response to the letter pleaded at paragraph
5.1.11. The said memorandum contained confidential information
concerning the Plaintiff, its subsidiary and associated companies
and its shareholders.
5.4 In or about the middle of 1991 (but in any
event before 10 July 1991), the Defendant provided a statement
to Lonrho which contained confidential information about the Plaintiff,
its subsidiary and associated companies and its shareholders.
A copy of the said statement is appended hereto as Appendix 2.
5.5 On a date unknown to the Plaintiff in 1991
(but in any event before 2 October 1991) the Defendant provided
a statement to Lonrho's solicitors Messrs Denton Hall Burgin and
Warrens, which contained confidential information about the Plaintiff,
its subsidiary and associated companies and its shareholders.
6. If, contrary to the Plaintiff's primary
case, the GJ Information or some of it did or could have become
known to Lonrho from a source other than the Defendant, the Plaintiff
will contend in the alternative that the Defendant breached his
obligation of confidentiality by confirming the accuracy of such
information to Lonrho. The Plaintiff will rely on the facts and
matters pleaded in Paragraph 5.1 above in support of its contention
that the Defendant provided the said confirmation.
7. In the premises the Defendant is under a
duty to account to the Plaintiff for the profits which he has
received by reason of his aforesaid breach of confidence. The
amounts received by the Defendant which are presently known to
the Plaintiff are as follows:
Particulars
|
| £ |
|
| Received by Defendant in late April
1990 | 100,000.00 |
| Received by Defendant pursuant to agreement
with AIT dated 6 February 1991 | 145,000.00 |
| Received
by Defendant in reimbursement of legal fees | 10,418.07 |
| Received by Defendant on 25 June 1991 | 100,000.00 |
| Received by Defendant on 26 June 1991 | 200,000.00 |
|
|
| | 555,418.07 |
|
8. Further or alternatively
by reason of the Defendant's aforesaid breach of contract the
Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage, including but not limited
to, payments made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant or for his
benefit upon and after the Defendant's termination of employment
with the Plaintiff.
9. Further the Plaintiff will claim interest
pursuant to Section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and/or
in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the amounts found
to be due to it at such rates and for such periods as the Court
thinks fit.
AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:
(1) An account of profits received by the
Defendant by reason of his breach of confidence;
(2) An order that the Defendant pay to
the Plaintiff the amount found to be due to it upon the taking
of the said account;
(3) Damages;
(4) An injunction restraining the Defendant
from communicating any confidential information concerning the
Plaintiff, its subsidiaries or its associated companies or its
shareholders to any other person;
(5) The aforesaid interest pursuant to
Section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and/or in the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court to be assessed.
Michael Lazarus
Served
this day of December 1993 by D J Freeman of 1 Fetter Lane, London
EC4A 1BR, Solicitors for the Plaintiff (Ref: LMH/89959 (Tel:
071 583 5555)) whose registered office is at 1 Howick Place, London
SW1P lBH.
Statement of John Macnamara Director of
Security, Harrods Limited
I have been shown a letter from Chrisoph Bettermann
dated 3 February 1997 addressed to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards in which he described Mr Al-Fayed as
a compulsive liar and that his close employees seeking to corroborate
him should be treated with the greatest circumspection. As one
of those close employees I wish to reply to some of the statements
contained in Mr Bettermann's letter. It is not surprising that
Mr Bettermann has volunteered to Sir Gordon Downey what he believes
to be damaging evidence against Mr Al-Fayed. Such is his vitriol
that he has also provided false statements to Vanity Fair, a magazine
which is seeking to defend a libel action brought by Mr Al-Fayed.
Mr Bettermann claims that his telephone calls
were secretly intercepted and his private conversations recorded.
This is totally untrue. I attach a sworn witness statement made
by Mr Adnan Karim, Vice Chairman of International Marine Services,
(IMS) Dubai. Who was assistant to Christoph Bettermann between
1986 and 1991, who during that time was President IMS. It will
be seen that in April or May 1991 he learned that Mr Bettermann
was seeking new employment and reported this to Mr Al-Fayed. Mr
Betterman later falsely stated that Mr Al-Fayed had learned of
this through tapping his telephone, whereas the reality was that
his negotiations to find other employment was common knowledge
in Dubai.
It will be seen from Mr Karim's statement that
I had been asked to carry out investigations after a file of
papers had been sent to Mr Al-Fayed. In July 1991 I began my enquiries
and tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr Bettermann. He avoided
me and despite diligent efforts to locate him, I soon learned
that Mr Bettermann had "gone to ground". I was successful
however in contacting Mr Wilfried Schneiders the former Finance
Director of International Marine Services who worked under Mr
Bettermann. I interviewed Mr Schneiders by appointment in Bremen
Germany, on 2 August 1991 when he made a written statement of
admission as to his involvement in fraud but insisted that he
was working under Christoph Betterman's instructions. He admitted
that the deal under investigation involving the salvage of a
vessel named "York Marine" was fraudulent but insisted
that such deals were common place in the salvage business.
At 11 pm on 2 August 1991, within an hour
of Mr Schneiders leaving me, Mr Bettermann telephoned me at my
hotel in Bremen and volunteered to meet me and cooperate in my
enquiries. I told him that Wilfried Schneiders had confessed
to being party to fraud. Bettermann agreed during that conversation
that a kick-back payment of $900,000 had been made to Crescent
Petroleum but insisted that the deal had not been to the detriment
of International Marine Services. A copy of Mr Schneiders' voluntary
statement is attached. I met Mr Bettermann by arrangement
on 7 August 1991 in Malaga, Spain. A summary of that meeting is
attached. It will be seen that Mr Bettermann claimed that insurers
had paid out $1.8 million in settlement of the salvage claim
and that $900,000 had been paid by way of a kick-back. He stated
that he believed the insurers had been defrauded. It was later
learned that the cargo was in fact un-insured. $900,000, half
of the $1.8 million salvage claim, was paid to Crescent Petroleum,
a company who later employed Mr Bettermann in a senior position.
I attach a statement dated 26 June 1995 dealing with the chronology
of events.
I attach a statement dated 24 June 1995 made
by Sheik Mohamed Suleiman who deals with the financial transaction
concerning the York Marine.
Mr Bettermann has stated that Mr Al-Fayed was
the source of articles which appeared in the Dubai Gulf News
on 27 January 1992 and in Private Eye 27 May 1993. I attach a
statement dated 25 June 1995 made by Mr Ali Mohamed Dahbashi
from which it will be seen that Mr Al-Fayed wrote to the Ruler
of Sharjah. The contents of that letter were not leaked to the
Press by either Mr Al-Fayed or any of his employees, although
it may well have been leaked through an agency in Dubai but if
this was the case it was certainly without Mr Al-Fayed's knowledge.
From investigations I made into the fraud committed
to the detriment of International Marine Services, I am confident
that there was a prima facie case against Christoph Bettermann
which may have resulted in a criminal conviction against him
if prosecuted in this country. In my dealings with Wilfried Schneiders
it was obvious that whilst employed as President of International
Marine Services, Christoph Bettermann ruled by fear and his subordinates
were too frightened to disobey his instructions even though they
knew they were committing criminal offences.
I was not called to give evidence at Mr Bettermann's
trial in Dubai and therefore evidence I was able to give which
would have identified him as the orchestrator of the fraud was
not put before the Court. Wilfried Schneiders, on the other hand,
did appear as a witness for Mr Bettermann and denied having made
his statement of admission to me. Not surprising, Christoph Bettermann
was acquitted. The libel action against Mr Bettermann was settled
because of letters Mr. Al-Fayed wrote to the ruler and deputy
Ruler of Sharjah stating inter alia that Mr Bettermann had embezzled
Company funds. As the criminal prosecution in Dubai had failed,
this statement could not be substantiated. Copy of statement
in open court attached.
10 February 1997
1994 B No. 2583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN
JOHANN
CHRISTOPH BETTERMANN
Plaintiff and
MOHAMED AL-FAYED Defendant
STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
Counsel for the Plaintiff
In
this action for libel, I appear on behalf of the Plaintiff, Johann
Christoph Bettermann, and Manuel Barca appears on behalf of the
Defendant, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Mr Bettermann is a businessman and
the Managing Director of a German construction company, and Mr
Al-Fayed is Chairman of Harrods Limited.
From 1984 to 1991, Mr Bettermann was President
of Mr Al-Fayed's company, International Marine Services. The
company was based in Dubai and provided services for the oil,
gas and petrochemical industries. It also had a Salvage and Towage
department. Mr Bettermann left the company in 1991. He was appointed
Deputy Chairman and Director of Harrods, and Chairman and Director
of Harrods Estates in 1990, but left Harrods in 1991.
In 1988, he negotiated a settlement on behalf
of International Marine Services in relation to a salvage operation.
The operation concerned the salvage of the cargo of a vessel,
the "York Marine", which was attacked by Iranian gun
boats during the Gulf war. In 1991, and following Mr Bettermann's
departure from Harrods and from International Marine Services,
Mr Al-Fayed sent letters to the Ruler and Deputy Ruler of Sharjah,
stating that he had fired Mr Bettermann for dishonestly abusing
his position with International Marine Services by embezzling
company funds. He gave the settlement Mr Bettermann had negotiated
in relation to the salvage operation by way of example.
Information had also been had by IMS in Dubai
which led to the prosecution and subsequent acquittal of Mr Bettermann.
IMS also brought civil proceedings against Mr Bettermann in Dubai
which were unsuccessful and failed twice on appeal. Mr Al-Fayed
now accepts that Mr Bettermann was not guilty of any embezzlement
or fraud. He acknowledges that Mr Bettermann left International
Marine Services and Harrods on agreed terms which neither involved
nor reflected any criticism of his past service. Mr Al-Fayed
now recognises that the letters should not have been sent and
regrets their consequences for Mr Bettermann. The parties have
agreed mutually acceptable terms for the disposal of the action
including appropriate compensation for Mr Bettermann.
Counsel for the Defendant
On behalf of Mr Al-Fayed I accept all that my friend has
said.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
In these circumstances. I ask leave for the record to be
withdrawn.
Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners Solicitors for
the Plaintiff D J Freeman Solicitors for the Defendant
10 Not printed. Back
11
Not printed. Back
| 
