WHAT REMAINS OF

THE ALLEGATIONS

AGAINST WALID

KURDI

1

The testimonies of all witnesses in the case of JPMC have been shared with the public by the media. So what can be deduced from the proceedings so far?

Here are the key milestones in the case to date

1. On the 7/3/2012, Parliament discussed the Privatization Report compiled by the

Parliamentary Committee, but decided to clear the privatisation of JPMC and

those responsible for it of any wrongdoing. Shortly after, the Minister of

Information at the time made hasty and ill-informed accusations against former

Chairman Walid Kurdi, before the Anti-Corruption Commission even began its

investigation.

Such blatant disregard of principles of justice and fairness by an official

representative is unacceptable, but it was an indication of the transgressions of

public figures and procedures that were to follow.

2. The preliminary interrogation made by the ACC. These lasted more than a year

and a half, and involved numbers of witnesses and over 70 files containing JPMC

documents and records. The extended length of this investigation violated the

ACC’s own law, which stipulates a strict time line for any investigation it initiates.

The treatment of a number of witnesses, who were subjected to threats and

intimidation if they did not implicate Walid Kurdi in wrongdoing, was also

reported.

2

The JPMC file was then sent to the Public Prosecutor, following which the head of

the ACC made a press conference (against all of the codes of secrecy and

discretion in the ACC’s by laws) in which he alleged that the ACC had discovered

hundreds of millions of dinars unaccounted for in the company.

This allegation was subsequently taken up by the media and widely broadcasted

making the case of JPMC a sensational topic of public debate in which both

official and non-official media channels included information that was both

misguided and distorted, in manners that would be considered libellous and

slanderous elsewhere.

3. The Public Prosecutor then launched his own investigation, reviewing once more

the witnesses and the case files that had gone before the ACC. On the

18/12/2012, a leaked secret memo came to the public’s attention, from the

Minister of Political Development, to the Prime Minister. This memo was

unprecedented; it called for the immediate fast tracking of the JPMC file to court,

for the benefit of upcoming elections and to enhance their legitimacy in the eyes

of the public.

This is a matter that requires the attention of lawmakers and defenders of the

Constitution and the believers in the independence of judiciary. In less than a

week, the Public Prosecutor delivered his decision of indictment which he raised

to the Attorney General who proceeded to charge Walid Kurdi and cite him as

being a “fugitive from justice”! The Public Prosecutor was then assigned to

present the allegations for the Court to begin its proceedings.

3

4. The Court hearings began on the 3/1/2013, with 2 charges, registered case

#1/2013 and case #2/2013. The date for the trial was announced in a local

newspaper, and as Walid Kurdi was labelled a fugitive from justice, he was to be

tried in absentia.

On the basis of the Court hearings and testimonies

delivered, and in response to the charges made, the

following can be surmised

1. On the allegation that JPMC suffered a loss of 42 million JD in shipping fees. Not

only did the witnesses of the Prosecution testify that JPMC didn’t cover shipping

costs, and that they are covered by the buyer, but an official letter was sent to

the Public Prosecutor of the ACC on the 16/10/2012, clearly stating this point.

2. On the allegation that fertilisers were sold by JPMC at prices lower than those

cited in international bulletins, which in turn resulted in the loss of tens of

millions of JDs for JPMC.

3. There remains a big question as to whether sufficient attention was given to the

Price Bulletins and their accuracy. Not a single witness testified to the bulletins

being accurate or binding, and all the witnesses with experience and technical

knowledge stated that the bulletins were merely indicators, that were neither

accurate, nor provided a reliable measure against which to evaluate sales prices.

The prices cited in the bulletins rely on figures shared by buyers and sellers after

sales have taken place, and do not necessarily represent actual prices at sales for

reasons of competition. The witnesses indicated that prices are affected by

numerous factors including:

4

a. The quality of the fertiliser (there are varying levels of quality, all of which

have their own price.

b. The quantity sold

c. The distance between buyer and seller

d. The degree of competition

e. The size of the buyer’s market

f. The aim of entering new markets

g. The aim of keeping important customers

h. Discounts provided to buyers and so forth.

Every contract has its own circumstances which

need to be considered.

In order to reach a fair understanding of the reality of the phosphate market,

were any attempts made to look into the terms and conditions of samples of

sales contracts made by JPMC’s competitors? Each contract has buyers and

sellers, and takes into consideration the place of sale, the quality of the goods,

the quantity, the price, the date of the contract vs. the date of arrival, whether

the agreement was FOB or CFR, the port of transport, the port of arrival, the

discount given by the seller, and so on.

Do sellers divulge the discounts they give their buyers to the international price

bulletins when they announce their sales? Probably not. And yet all these factors

need to be fully considered and understood to ascertain the accuracy of the

bulletins. They certainly indicate that the price bulletins are in no way sufficient

evidence on which to make criminal charges.

5

Fertecon Also, were any attempts made to look at the terms and conditions of the companies

that issue these bulletins? One of the main bulletins utilised in this case is Fertecon,

which can easily be accessed on the internet. A visit to Fertecon’s site clarifies their

terms and conditions as follows

You must read and agree to these Terms and Conditions before you can use the

service provided through the fertecon.com & agra-net.com website identified by

the url: fertecon.com & agra-net.com. Please read this document carefully. By

requesting access to fertecon.com you become a licensed user and agree to be

bound by these Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree to these terms of use,

please refrain from using our site

A further reading of the terms and conditions of the international bulletins will show the

reader that whoever devised the allegation that Walid Kurdi sold at prices lower than

the prices cited in the bulletins, did not actually read the disclaimer of any of the

international bulletins.

5. Disclaimer of Liability

Informa UK Limited and fertecon.com & agra-net.com do not give any warranty,

condition or guarantee as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency

or reliability of the information and material published on fertecon.com & agra-

net.com and expressly disclaim (to the maximum extent permitted by law) all

liability and responsibility for damages or loss arising from any reliance placed

on such materials by any visitor to our site, or by anyone who may be informed

of any of its contents. Informa UK Limited and fertecon.com & agra-net.com

expressly exclude; i. all conditions, warranties and other terms which might

otherwise be implied by statute, common law or the law of equity; ii. any liability

6

for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage incurred by any user in

connection with our site or in connection with the use, inability to use, or results

of the use of our site, any websites linked to it and any materials posted on it,

including, without limitation any liability for loss of income or revenue; loss of

business; loss of profits or contracts; loss of anticipated savings; loss of data;

loss of goodwill; wasted management or office time; and for any other loss or

damage of any kind, however arising and whether caused by tort (including

negligence), breach of contract or otherwise, even if foreseeable.

So if Fertecon itself actually states that it does not guarantee the accuracy and reliability

of the information that it provides, how can a criminal charge be based upon a bulletin,

which proclaims itself to be inaccurate?

There is even more to the issue, as illustrated in the following, also cited in Fertecon

15. No Advice

No tax, legal or investment advice of any kind (including advice and

opinions with respect to the nature, potential value or suitability of any

particular securities transactions, financial products or investment

strategy) is being provided by fertecon.com & agra-net.com or Informa

UK Limited to the user. Any investment decisions made by the user will

be based solely on their own evaluation of their financial circumstances

and investment objectives and not on the basis of any investment

information given in fertecon.com & agra-net.com.

There can be no room for argument after reading all this from Fertecon itself, which also

states that no-one should rely on its price bulletins for investment purposes. If the

bulletins cannot be relied upon to make investment decision, then surely they cannot be

relied upon to make criminal charges?

7

4. On the allegation that higher quality phosphate was sold at lower prices: The

allegation concerns the practise of blending. It is a known fact, confirmed by the

statement made by Dr. Munther Hadadin in the General Assembly of

Shareholders meeting on the 28/4/2012, that Jordanian phosphate is now mostly

of lower quality (65-67 purity). The purity of phosphate depends on the level of

TCP, which is less in lower grade 65-67 phosphate, in which the levels of silica

(which is not desirable) is very high in 65-67 phosphate. In order to raise the

quality of phosphate and market it Jordanian phosphate is blended, and higher

grade phosphate is added to the predominantly low grade phosphate.

This practise has been common in Jordan since the 1980s. It should also be

pointed out that blending is actually less costly than the alternative which entails

washing and drying phosphate and requires large amounts of water and energy.

Blending is therefore the best option and it was for this reason that the Council of

Ministers agreed to continue the practise in its decision on 13/1/2013, after JPMC

was unable to sell its non-blended product.

This was all confirmed by the witnesses of the Prosecution, many of whom also

denied the accusation that the former Chairman favoured certain companies. The

witnesses also confirmed that the quality testing performed was not accurate and

that the test results by JPMC itself differ from those of external labs which in turn

differ from the results of tests conducted by the buyer in their own labs.

Any serious attempt at understanding the issue of blending would compare the

test results of the research department at JPMC with those conducted by the

sales department. The fact that there is a difference between the two should be

sufficient evidence that there is inaccuracy in the test certificates provided by the

company. It certainly indicates that these results cannot be the basis for a

criminal charge.

8

5. What remains of the allegations against Walid Kurdi? That he owns or is a

shareholder in the intermediary companies Quartz and Astra Global? If the

ownership certificates of the companies are insufficient evidence of ownership,

then what is the documentation that can prove ownership or shareholding

without a doubt? And is it enough just to speculate? The ownership documents

of these companies have proven that Walid Kurdi is neither the owner nor a

shareholder in either company. None of the witnesses of the Prosecution

testified that Walid Kurdi had any direct or indirect benefit from these two

companies.

So what remains to be said after the witnesses themselves have made all this clear??