CLOSING STATEMENT 0

Responses to General Prosecutor's

Closing Statement

CLOSING STATEMENT 1

Introduction

In his final summing up before the Court at the end of May 2013, the Anti-

Corruption Commission (ACC) Public Prosecutor concluded two years of

investigation into the Case of JPMC, by requesting the conviction of Walid

Kurdi for loss of profit to JPMC. The Public Prosecutor attributed this 'loss

of profit' to sales prices which he claimed were lower than those quoted in

International Bulletins. Other losses were, he alleged, due to the decision

not to use the Marine Charter Company (Al Musharata) and the shipping

costs that JPMC had incurred and borne as a result. He also cited the

‘preferential treatment' given in favour of certain companies by Walid Kurdi

as the cause of further losses to JPMC.

The fact that the Public Prosecutor's closing statement was quoted and

published in part by the media, was an obvious and direct attempt to

continue the attempts to influence and manipulate public opinion against

Walid Kurdi. This is a flagrant breach of justice, in a case, which has been

marred by attempts to distort fairness and the law from the very start. This

was an even more obvious attempt than ever to sway the verdict against

the former CEO and Chairman of JPMC, despite the lack of evidence, and

the testimonies of the key witnesses in the trial. The Prime Minister's own

statement to Parliament in this regard, represents yet another effort to exert

political pressure on the Court.

While such blatant attempts have become characteristic of the way that this

case has been treated for almost two years now, the fact that they now

appear to be 'normal' now makes them no less dangerous to the prospect

of justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the fairness of the law in

Jordan today.

From the outset, the aim of accusing Walid Kurdi was to reach a conviction,

despite the fact that the evidence submitted by the Public Prosecutor in

reality, only underlined the accused's innocence. The testimonies of the

witnesses and tens of documents would have easily refuted the allegations

from the start, had there not been a clear agenda with political motivations

steering the proceedings.

CLOSING STATEMENT 2

The Prime Minister's recent statement in Parliament, shortly prior to the

awaited verdict, in which he referred to the 'largest corruption case in the

history of Jordan' could not have been more obvious in its intention of

sensationalizing the case and eliciting a guilty verdict.

Walid Kurdi has refused all of the settlement offers made by officials to

close the case file. While the officials in question do not wish their identity

to be known, what can be said is that Walid Kurdi not only flatly refused the

offers, but also did so because of his absolute certainty of the falsity of all

the allegations against him.

The case of JPMC was initiated and purposefully developed to be a trial by

public to divert the street's attention from demands for legitimate political

and economic reform.

The manner in which the ACC publicized the investigation, in direct

violation of its own secrecy and discretion law, indicated that from the start,

the objective was to convict Walid Kurdi - even before the actual charges

against him were clear to anyone, including the ACC themselves.

CLOSING STATEMENT 3

Privatization and the Phosphate Case

What began as a public demand emanating from the Jordanian Street,

calling for the investigation of Privatisation, not only of JPMC, but many

public facilities, such as the Arab Potash Company, the Jordan

Telecommunications Company, and Jordan's Electricity Company, has

since settled on a deliberately drawn out attack on the person of one man.

Encouraged by then Prime Minister Awn Al-Khasawneh, successive

governments have since followed this course. When the Chief of the ACC

announced that the ACC was investigating suspected corruption, the focus

was already directed to Walid Kurdi and no longer at the privatization

process itself.

This was rapidly followed by a statement from the official spokesman for

the government and the Minister of Information at the time, in which the

charge of corruption levelled against Walid Kurdi specifically, whom he

alleged to have embezzled funds from JPMC (the accusations themselves

were to change over time, showing little consistency and even less

attention to detail).

WHY?

Reasons for creating the case...

• In order to distract the public's demand reform, Walid Kurdi was seen

as the perfect scapegoat.

• In order to prove the power of the ACC and its commitment, and to

show that 'nobody is above the law'.

• To encourage people to participate in the upcoming parliamentary

elections of January 2013, which lacked credibility, amidst growing

fears of a public boycott.

It could be argued that a number of these targets appear to have been

achieved during the ensuing investigation and trial. Attention, at least on

the surface, has been diverted from Privatisation in Jordan in general. The

government boasts that it succeeded in holding fair and transparent

CLOSING STATEMENT 4

elections, reflecting the will of the people. Debate and letters of confidence

in the current government continue to use the case of JPMC as a strategic

scoring card in discussions about corruption, transparency and economic

reform. In fact, it would appear that JPMC is the magic wand to cure all the

country's ills.

Responses to General Prosecutor's Closing Statement

• The case now commonly referred to as 'the Phosphate Case' centres

on influencing public opinion, but is lacking in actual evidence of

corruption or any proof of the allegations make against Walid Kurdi.

• The recent statement made by the Prime Minister in Parliament in

May 2013, at the end of the trial and a few days before the expected

verdict, contains a strong message of conviction intended, it would

seem, to stir public opinion again and to put pressure on the Court.

• Walid Kurdi has refused offers made by certain officials for a financial

settlement in return for closing the case, because of his innocence

and the falsity of the accusations made against him.

• The Public Prosecutor has consistently ignored the testimony of key

witnesses and tens of documents which refute the allegations, prior to

and during the trial.

• This case was devised and orchestrated to be a trial by public opinion

to distract the street from its demands for legitimate economic and

political reform.

• The case was referred to the Judiciary in December 2012, following a

confidential memorandum prepared by the Minister of Political Affairs,

which urged the Prime Minister to refer the case to Court in order to

lend credibility at the time for the approaching parliamentary

elections.

CLOSING STATEMENT 5

• Conducting a trial whether in absentia, or with the presence of the

accused in Court should have no bearing on the outcome, the basis

of which should be decided on the quality of the evidence and the

ability of the prosecution to prove the allegations. There are

precedents for this in all courts, including Jordan.

• Walid Kurdi was authorized by JPMC's Board of Directors to

determine sale prices and terms, and to enter into agreements. He

exercised his power accordingly, and upon the advice and

recommendations of the specialised sales and marketing teams in

the company.

• All of the Court testimonies affirmed that International Prices Bulletins

are not considered to be binding references that determine prices,

due to the fact that they rely on buyer and seller statements which are

often inaccurate and misleading.

• International Prices Bulletins themselves make explicit legal

statements, which state that they are not liable nor can they

guarantee the accuracy of their content, and they do not recommend

anyone to solely rely on their figures during transactions.

• All the evidence indicates that there is no validity to the claims that

Walid Kurdi owns any shares or that he made profit from any of the

intermediary companies. Furthermore, Astra Global and Quartz are

owned by the company Tradex and a family-owned Indian

corporation respectively.

• JPMC was under no obligation to deal with the Marine Charter

Company (Al Musharata) nor was there any binding agreement to

that effect. It is therefore unwarranted to claim that JPMC incurred

losses by dealing with other shipping companies. The Arab Potash

Company had similar dealings with the same shipping companies

under the same terms and conditions, but yet was not accused of any

wrongdoing.

CLOSING STATEMENT 6

• Funds transferred by ASTRA to Walid Kurdi's London account were

wholly accounted for and legally justified in a fully documented shares

purchase transaction which was not actually executed. The precise

amount was returned in full to the source, and all documentation

provided indicates the total transparency of the transaction, which

was concluded four years prior to the start of the investigation. There

can therefore be no validity to the claims that Walid Kurdi made any

personal gains from dealings with Astra.

• The accusations that these funds were linked to the sale or purchase

of phosphate, or to commissions from the sale or purchase of

phosphate are totally unfounded. Also, financial figures about the

personal accounts cited by the Public Prosecutor were grossly

inflated and distorted to mislead the public and hide actual facts.

• Shipping contracts made during Walid Kurdi's management did not

actually result in any loss to JPMC due to the fact that they are borne

by the buyer who in turn specified the shipping carrier of his choice,

as JPMC declared in a letter on 16/10/2012 to the Public Prosecutor.

However, this evidence was not presented.

• Dealing with JPMC’s agent in India predates the management period

of Walid Kurdi, in the early nineties. Dealing with Astra Global was

the result of the specific written request of I.P.L (one of JPMC's

largest clients). The owner of Astra Global remains JPMC's agent in

India until today.

• The company Quartz was requested in writing by Astra Global, to

replace its services after its own operations deteriorated.

• JPMC's Board of Directors includes representatives of the Jordanian

Government, the Social Security Department, as well as the Kuwaiti

and Bruneian shareholders. None of the aforementioned have ever

expressed any concerns about Walid Kurdi's management, or

procedures. The same can be said of Ernst and Young, JPMC’s

auditors.

CLOSING STATEMENT 7

• The blending of phosphate to improve its quality was a policy

followed by JPMC since 1990 or earlier, for all buyers. JPMC still

conducts blending until today. When the management that followed

Walid Kurdi was unable to market phosphate without blending, it

addressed a written letter to the Cabinet, through the Minister of

Industry and Trade, requesting its approval for blending to continue.

This request was formally approved by a Cabinet decision on the

13th of January 2013, which was signed by the Prime Minister. This

decision again was not presented in evidence to the Court.

• The crime of 'exploitation of office' is premised upon the achievement

of personal gain through fraud or the violation of provisions governing

transactions under suspicion. Neither of these criteria have been

proven in the case of JPMC under Walid Kurdi's management.

• It has not been proven by conclusive evidence nor beyond

reasonable doubt that Walid Kurdi gained profit from contracts

entered into, by, and between JPMC and Astra Global or Quartz, or

that he exploited his office, or that he executed contracts through a

company in which he owned shares.

• No conclusive evidence has been submitted regarding alleged gained

profit, neither regarding cheating in transactions, nor regarding the

aim of causing loss to JPMC. There is no evidence of favouritism for

intermediary companies, nor regarding the ownership or partnership

of Mr. Kurdi in any of these intermediary companies.

CLOSING STATEMENT 8

Witnesses’ Testimonies In Court

• H.E Mr. Wasif Azar, former Chairman of JPMC, as a witness, testified

before the Court that the prices of the International Bulletins are not

official, but are merely indicative, and they are based upon producing

and consumer companies’ own employees, for their own interests.

• H.E Mr. Azar also stated: 'when I returned to the Board of Directors of

JPMC, there was an agreement with the Anti-Corruption Commission

(ACC) to sell phosphate and DAP to any commercial or intermediary

company who wished to buy'.

• The witness Suheil Musleh, Deputy CEO for Marketing in his

testimony before the Court, stated that dealings with the Marine

Charter Company (Al Musharata) stopped in 2004( two years before

Walid Kurdi joined JPMC). That year a Board resolution was issued

obliging JPMC to sell by F.O.B.

• Mr Musleh also stated that the shipping costs are borne by the buyer

not by JPMC.

• In his testimony before the Court, the witness Mohammad Hmoud,

Executive Director of Marketing for phosphate stated that JPMC's

dealing with Astra Global came as the result of the explicit request of

the Indian company I.P.L. He also stated that at no time was it

observed that Walid Kurdi ever requested any departments in JPMC

to provide better phosphate quality than the quality agreed upon for

certain clients.

• The witness Ahmad Zu'bi, JPMC’s Legal Advisor and Head of Legal

Department in his testimony before the Court, confirmed that JPMC

has nothing to do with shipping costs and that such costs are borne

by the buyer.

• Mr. Zu'bi also explained that shipping costs in the sale contract to

Turkey were borne by the buyer, as JPMC charged the prices of

goods in addition to shipping costs to the buyer.

CLOSING STATEMENT 9

• Mr Zu'bi stated that Mr. Kurdi was not involved in the management of

Aqaba Development and Maritime Services Company (ADAMS)

before selling his share.

• The witness Sana'a Kara'een, Executive Director of the Financial

Department, stated that JPMC was paid all shipping costs in addition

to the shipped phosphate costs from the buyer.

• Certain witnesses who were interrogated by the ACC during the

investigation of JPMC, submitted complaints to the Ombudsman

Bureau and others regarding the procedures of the investigations,

maintaining that they were subjected to intimidation and threats in

order to force them to testify against Walid Kurdi.

Distortions that have overshadowed the law and legal proceedings in the

case: Allegations that Walid Kurdi incurred losses for JPMC.

The Public Prosecutor for the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC)

concluded almost 2 years of probing into JPMC, in his closing statement to

the Court, at the end of the hearing, by demanding that Walid Kurdi be

'deemed a criminal for damages to the company'.

This accusation of “damages” should be considered in light of the following:

• The total profits of JPMC from 1953 until the end of 2005 were

approximately 240 million JD. Between 2006 and 2011 alone, under

Walid Kurdi's management, profits were 600 million JD.

• Ownership revenues rose from 140 million at the end of 2005 to

around 635 million at the end of 2011.

• The last external investment into JPMC, prior to Walid Kurdi’s

management, was in 1993, at the value of 27 million US dollars.

During Walid Kurdi’s management, external investments into JPMC

rose to more than 1 billion US dollars.

CLOSING STATEMENT 10

• Approximately 800 job opportunities were created 2006 as a result of

such increased investments and projects, as opposed to only 116

jobs given between 2000-2005.

• JPMC's financial advisor’s recommendation of job cuts was not

implemented after privatization, and Al Hasa and Al Abiad mines

were not closed: on the contrary, within JPMC itself, 546 people

joined the company.

• Employee benefits also improved after 2006, and JPMC became the

leading company in Jordan, and the first to give employees the 15th

and 16th tier salaries, increasing the average monthly income of

employees to 1,158 Jordanian Dinars, which is significantly higher

than the average income.

• Since 2006, there has been a 16.4% profit distribution of total profits.

Such profits were set aside for projects to be implemented within

Jordan. Of these, the following have been implemented:

o JIFCO and JAFCO (joint venture fertiliser factories)

o The new phosphate port in Aqaba

o Renovation of the Industrial port

o Investment into the transport sector

o Renovating the Industrial Complex and applying new

environmental standards

o Increasing JPMC ownership and control of subsidiary

companies

*All the above is valued at approximately 1.5 billion US dollars (the

largest investment in Jordan’s history), with the potential to create

many additional job opportunities.

CLOSING STATEMENT 11

• JPMC’s increased profits since 2006 reflected positively on returns to

the National Treasury. Direct returns from JPMC between 2006-2010

reached approximately 364 million JD, as compared to 208.2 million

JD for the four years prior to privatization. The government, which

owns 26% of JPMC, and Social Security which owns 16%, both

benefitted from increased returns in these years.

• The value of the Phosphoric Acid Production Project in partnership

with the Indian mega company IFCO, is approximately 350 million

dollars, and related small projects for the production of STTP are

estimated at 50-55 million US dollars.

• The Hasa Mining Project, a Jordanian-Bahraini initiative is estimated

at 55 million US dollars.

• The foundation stone for the 650 million US dollar Al Sheidiya project

was laid, in cooperation with the Indian Farmers Cooperative IFCO.

• The Fertilizer Factory expansion.

• The JIFCO Phosphoric Acid Factory in Al Sheidiya.

• The Industrial Complex Port.

• The Fertilizer Project in Al Sheidiya for 300 million dollars.

CLOSING STATEMENT 12

THE FACT THAT THIS TRIAL – OR ANY - TRIAL IS CONDUCTED IN ABSENTIA OR OTHERWISE SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING; THE ISSUE REMAINS ONE OF THE PROOF AND VALIDITY OF THE EVIDENCE. What was striking about the Public Prosecutor's closing statement at the

end of May in the trial of Walid Kurdi was his assertion that the written

evidence and individual testimonies presented by the Prosecution in the

course of the trial were neither disproved nor contradicted.

This is a clear deviation from the law, according to which the Public

Prosecutor should in fact establish the validity of his evidence and his

ability to provide proof – not that there was nothing to disprove or contradict

the allegations due to the fact that there was no defence and the trial was

in absentia. This shows clearly that the Prosecution is depending wholly on

this aspect of the trial, rather than the evidence itself. In other words, the

fact that Walid Kurdi is not present at the trial in person, is being shown to

be sufficient reason to convict him.

The basic legal premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, or

that he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is absent from

this trial. The Public Prosecutor’s statement relies less on any attempts to

prove the allegations made against Walid Kurdi, than it does on

sensationalism and an attempt to gain public approval.

During the hearing of the past months, neither the evidence submitted nor

the witnesses’ testimonies provided anything close to indisputable proof of

the allegations made against Walid Kurdi. As a result, the Prosecution

seems intent on diverting attention away from the weakness of the case

itself, and instead, to the absence of the accused, and the opinion of the

street, in sensationalized language that has nothing to do with the law, the

charges, or the evidence.