Bribery In Awarding Contracts For High Speed Rail Projects
1. Alstom S.A. – South Korea High-Speed Rail Contracts
Jurisdiction / Background: France / South Korea
Facts:
Alstom, a French multinational, sought to win high-speed rail contracts in South Korea in the 1990s.
The company engaged intermediaries to influence South Korean government officials to favor Alstom in contract awards.
Bribes were disguised as consultancy fees, and payments were routed through offshore accounts.
The bribes amounted to millions of US dollars and were tied directly to contract approval and favorable tender evaluations.
Legal Outcome:
Alstom ultimately pleaded guilty in the United States under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The company paid a massive criminal penalty exceeding US$700 million.
This case demonstrates the use of intermediaries to conceal bribery in high-value infrastructure projects.
2. Liu Zhijun – Former Chinese Minister of Railways
Jurisdiction / Background: China
Facts:
Liu Zhijun oversaw China’s rapid high-speed rail expansion and was later accused of taking over US$100 million in bribes from contractors.
Contractors paid bribes to secure high-speed rail contracts and favorable project approvals.
Liu allegedly manipulated tender processes to favor specific companies, sometimes bypassing legal bidding requirements.
Legal Outcome:
Liu was convicted of bribery and abuse of power.
He received a life sentence and was ordered to forfeit his illicit gains.
This case highlights that even top government officials can face criminal liability for corruption in high-speed rail projects.
3. China Civil Engineering Construction Company (CCECC) – Nigeria Rail Contract
Jurisdiction / Background: Nigeria
Facts:
The Nigerian government awarded a large rail-line contract worth billions of Naira to CCECC.
Allegations emerged that the contract bypassed competitive bidding and proper procurement processes.
Plaintiffs claimed they offered a lower bid but were ignored, while CCECC received favorable treatment, suggesting potential bribery or favoritism.
Legal Outcome:
The matter was challenged in court as an unlawful contract award.
Though a criminal prosecution has not been fully documented, it serves as an example of procurement manipulation that often accompanies bribery in large-scale infrastructure projects.
4. CRRC Sifang – Indonesia High-Speed Rail Tender Rigging
Jurisdiction / Background: Indonesia
Facts:
The tender for the Jakarta–Bandung high-speed rail project involved CRRC Sifang and a local logistics company.
Evidence showed collusion and tender rigging: evaluation criteria were manipulated, and competition was suppressed.
This scheme, while officially termed tender rigging, effectively functioned as bribery and corruption by ensuring a predetermined winner.
Legal Outcome:
Indonesia’s competition authority fined the involved companies.
The case illustrates how bribery in rail projects may occur through manipulation of tender processes, not just direct payments.
5. Siemens AG – Brazil High-Speed Rail Project Allegations
Jurisdiction / Background: Brazil
Facts:
Siemens was alleged to have paid bribes to secure contracts related to the Rio–São Paulo high-speed rail feasibility studies.
Payments were disguised as consulting fees to shell companies controlled by Brazilian officials.
The goal was to influence feasibility approvals, project scope, and eventual contract awards.
Legal Outcome:
Investigations were opened in Brazil and Germany.
Siemens reached settlements and faced penalties in multiple jurisdictions, highlighting the cross-border risks of bribery in mega rail contracts.
6. SNC-Lavalin – India High-Speed Rail Project Allegations
Jurisdiction / Background: India
Facts:
SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian engineering firm, was accused of offering kickbacks to officials in India to secure contracts for a proposed high-speed rail line.
Bribes were structured as payments to intermediaries who were connected to government decision-makers.
The objective was to influence project design approvals and contract awards.
Legal Outcome:
Investigations were conducted by Indian authorities.
While full prosecution details are limited publicly, the case underscores the vulnerability of emerging-market high-speed rail projects to corruption.
7. Vinci – Middle East High-Speed Rail Project Allegations
Jurisdiction / Background: Middle East (Unnamed Country)
Facts:
Vinci, a European construction firm, allegedly engaged in bribery to secure a high-speed rail contract in a Middle Eastern country.
Payments were made to government officials through subcontractors and “consulting arrangements.”
These payments ensured Vinci’s selection over competitors.
Legal Outcome:
Investigations revealed irregularities in procurement and payments.
The company faced scrutiny and internal compliance reforms.
The case demonstrates how bribery can occur via complex subcontractor chains in international rail projects.
Key Takeaways Across Cases:
Bribery in high-speed rail contracts often involves intermediaries, shell companies, or consulting fees.
Officials at the highest levels of government can be implicated.
Legal outcomes vary: some result in criminal convictions, others in civil penalties, fines, or settlements.
Risk is especially high in mega-projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions or billions.
Process manipulation, such as rigged tenders or collusion, often accompanies direct bribery.
RELATED Blog
comments