[ad_1]
Eduardo Carmigniani
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Corruption of Odebrecht in the region to obtain contracts not only reveals the filth of the high political clbad, presidents slaughtered, convicted or prosecuted for receiving bribes. Also that of "entrepreneurs" who, in the form of subcontractors or partners of the construction company, participated in the distribution / financing of bribes.
The case of Peru is, from what has been discovered up to now, the most outrageous. The four presidents who preceded the current are the subject of an investigation for this cause. But the oil spill of corruption has not stopped at the question of contracts: he also contaminated the arbitrations in which the disputes between Odebrecht and various Peruvian public entities that had hired him.
The "modus operandi" was to repeatedly designate (19 cases in six years) as a referee of a subject called Horacio Cánepa, to whom, according to the recent denunciation (February 2019) of the Odebrecht Extesorero Luiz Da Rocha Soares, he would have received more than three million dollars – not declared – to favor him in the courts of which he was a member. Payments were made to an account of the private bank of Andorra through the famous screen Klienfeld.
The Cánepa case is sounding the alarm on how arbitration centers should play their role in the formation of referee lists. First, avoid odious compadrajes, both by including and, more importantly, by excluding people from these lists. Second, act decisively to decide whether or not to confirm an arbitrator appointed by a party not on the list. Third, publicize the actions of the arbitrators (number of cases in which they participated, who appointed them, and, more importantly, while preserving the confidentiality of the cases, how they settled them).
A serious mistake would be to look away. Odebrecht and Cánepa undermine one of the fundamental pillars of arbitration (the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator). An arbitrator who is corrupted must be treated as an outcast. The message is given.
The Cánepa case is sounding the alarm as to how arbitration centers should play their role in setting up referees' lists.
Source link
