当前位置：新闻动态
Polar Air Cargo frames itself as victim in illegal payments case
来源：shippingazette 编辑：编辑部 发布：2023/01/31 15:00:09
POLAR Air Cargo has framed itself as the victim of embezzlement in a case where it already admitted its management received illicit payments, reports London's Loadstar.
The case will raise questions over shareholders Atlas Air and DHL's oversight of the company.
The case involves forwarder Cargo on Demand (COD), claiming to retain its BSA deal, it had "been forced to pay consulting fees" of US$4 million over seven years to the private accounts or companies of six Polar executives.
The forwarder also alleged that Polar cut all its business ties with COD, in 2021.
However, Polar has told a court the "illicit payments" were at its expense, and it had to cut its ties with COD after the company discovered the payments.
There are some claims in the response to COD's case, including that no one ever claimed the payments were legal.
Polar declared the fees "were the result of embezzlement by Polar management in which Polar management siphoned cargo fees away from Polar to themselves, in which COD was complicit."
"The alleged facts present, at most, a business dispute between COD and Polar management - in which Polar itself was a victim by, as the complaint itself admits, receiving 'deceptively low' cargo fees as a result of Polar management's scheme - rather than a 'pattern of racketeering activity'." said Polar.
Polar added that after it discovered the scheme, it fired the management concerned and terminated the BSA with COD.
"Polar's position is that COD was not misled at all when it made monthly payments to Polar management, but rather was an active participant in an embezzlement and bribery scheme, in which COD and Polar management diverted a portion of COD's cargo fees to Polar Management and away from Polar, in exchange for COD receiving favourable treatment in the form of lower rates and guaranteed cargo space, all to the detriment of Polar," said Polar.
Although the court will have to rule on the case, it raises a bigger question over oversight of the carrier.
If Polar management is different from Polar as a corporate entity, who should take responsibility for illegal payments?
The case will raise questions over shareholders Atlas Air and DHL's oversight of the company.
The case involves forwarder Cargo on Demand (COD), claiming to retain its BSA deal, it had "been forced to pay consulting fees" of US$4 million over seven years to the private accounts or companies of six Polar executives.
The forwarder also alleged that Polar cut all its business ties with COD, in 2021.
However, Polar has told a court the "illicit payments" were at its expense, and it had to cut its ties with COD after the company discovered the payments.
There are some claims in the response to COD's case, including that no one ever claimed the payments were legal.
Polar declared the fees "were the result of embezzlement by Polar management in which Polar management siphoned cargo fees away from Polar to themselves, in which COD was complicit."
"The alleged facts present, at most, a business dispute between COD and Polar management - in which Polar itself was a victim by, as the complaint itself admits, receiving 'deceptively low' cargo fees as a result of Polar management's scheme - rather than a 'pattern of racketeering activity'." said Polar.
Polar added that after it discovered the scheme, it fired the management concerned and terminated the BSA with COD.
"Polar's position is that COD was not misled at all when it made monthly payments to Polar management, but rather was an active participant in an embezzlement and bribery scheme, in which COD and Polar management diverted a portion of COD's cargo fees to Polar Management and away from Polar, in exchange for COD receiving favourable treatment in the form of lower rates and guaranteed cargo space, all to the detriment of Polar," said Polar.
Although the court will have to rule on the case, it raises a bigger question over oversight of the carrier.
If Polar management is different from Polar as a corporate entity, who should take responsibility for illegal payments?