Advertisement
Singapore markets close in 2 hours 12 minutes
  • Straits Times Index

    3,258.92
    -41.12 (-1.25%)
     
  • Nikkei

    38,202.37
    -632.73 (-1.63%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    18,365.55
    -113.82 (-0.62%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    8,313.67
    +100.18 (+1.22%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    62,414.01
    -1,259.34 (-1.98%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,289.28
    -5.39 (-0.42%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,187.70
    +6.96 (+0.13%)
     
  • Dow

    38,884.26
    +31.99 (+0.08%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    16,332.56
    -16.69 (-0.10%)
     
  • Gold

    2,323.70
    -0.50 (-0.02%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    77.89
    -0.49 (-0.63%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.4630
    -0.0260 (-0.58%)
     
  • FTSE Bursa Malaysia

    1,605.62
    -0.06 (-0.00%)
     
  • Jakarta Composite Index

    7,087.68
    -35.93 (-0.50%)
     
  • PSE Index

    6,630.88
    +12.30 (+0.19%)
     

German court calls for new fraud trial for former Siemens manager

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - A former Siemens AG (SIEGn.DE) board member faces a new trial in Germany in connection with a bribery scandal around a decade ago at the engineering group, two years after he was acquitted by a Munich court, the country's highest court said on Tuesday.

Siemens agreed in 2008 to pay more than $1.3 billion (1 billion pounds) to settle corruption probes in the United States and Germany, ending two years of controversy that rocked the German company.

Former board member Uriel Sharef stood trial in Munich for three counts of fraud for allegedly helping twice to order the payment of bribes totalling $14.2 million in Latin America and for allegedly failing to close out a $35 million slush fund.

The Munich court acquitted Sharef in 2014, saying it was not convinced he was involved in the ordering of bribes and that he had not known the slush fund still existed.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Federal Court of Justice upheld the acquittal on the payment of bribes but overturned the Munich court's decision to acquit Sharef of fraud charges regarding the slush fund, citing legal errors.

"The regional court did not provide solid reasoning," it said in a statement, calling for a new trial and a new ruling.

(Reporting by Maria Sheahan; Editing by Mark Potter)