Saudi prince freed in $1 billion settlement agreement: official

[webfact]

Saudi prince freed in $1 billion settlement agreement: official

By Sami Aboudi

 

FILE PHOTO - Saudi Arabian Prince Miteb bin Abdullah at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, June 18, 2014. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer/File Photo

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Senior Saudi Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, once seen as a leading contender to the throne, was freed after reaching an "acceptable settlement agreement" with authorities paying more than $1 billion, a Saudi official said on Wednesday.

 

Miteb, who was head of the elite National Guard, was among dozens of royal family members, ministers and current and former senior officials who were rounded up in a graft inquiry at least partly aimed at strengthening the power of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

 

The official, who is involved in the anti-corruption campaign, said Miteb was released on Tuesday after reaching "an acceptable settlement agreement".

 

"The amount of the settlement was not disclosed but it is believed to be more than one billion US dollar equivalent," the official told Reuters.

 

"It is understood that the settlement included admitting corruption involving known cases," the official said.

 

Officials from Miteb's office could not immediately be reached for a comment.

 

Royal family members and acquaintances of Miteb had earlier posted messages on social media suggesting that the prince was at his home in Riyadh, but did not say how his release had come about.

 

Saudi authorities announced on November 4 the arrest of at least 11 royal family members, as well as four ministers and dozens of former officials and businessmen in what the government said was a crackdown on corruption.

 

Billionaire prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an international investor, was among those detained.

 

Saudi authorities had been working on striking agreements with some of those in detention, asking them to hand over assets and cash in return for their freedom.

 

In an interview with the New York Times published last week, Prince Mohammed bin Salman was quoted as saying that the vast majority of about 200 businessmen and officials implicated in the crackdown were agreeing to settlements under which they would hand assets over to the government.

 

Apart from Miteb, the Saudi official said that at least three other people allegedly involved in corruption cases have also finalised settlement agreements. He said the Public Prosecutor had also decided to release a number of individuals and to prosecute at least 5 individuals. The official gave no details on their identities.

 

As the Sandhurst-trained preferred son of the late King Abdullah, Miteb was once thought to be a leading contender to the throne.

 

Before he was sacked by a royal decree on Nov. 4, he headed the Saudi National Guard, an elite internal security force originally based on traditional tribal units that was run by his father for five decades.

 

He was also the last remaining member of Abdullah's Shammar branch of the family to retain a key position at the top of the Saudi power structure, after brothers Mishaal and Turki were relieved of their posts as governors in 2015.

 

(Reporting by Samia Nakhoul Writing by Sami Aboudi; Editing by Toni Reinhold)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-29

[lannarebirth]

Hopefully he'll still be able to pay his utility bills to keep the lights on at his Lake Geneva estate.

[steven100]

that's alot of Saudi riyals ....      guess next months Aramco cheque will fix that one ...

[ezzra]

He had the 1 billion dollars in in the trunk of his car inside his gym bag that he forgot about... and he got out cheap....

 

[tonray]

Buy you way out of graft and corruption...that's the way to fix a dirty system....

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, tonray said:

Buy you way out of graft and corruption...that's the way to fix a dirty system....

And immensely encouraging to all those foreign investors that the Crown Prince is courting.

[observer90210]

1 billion dollar fine !!!!!?!!!.....Now that would make quite a few Cohiba Cuban Premium cigars, smoked on a beach in Thailand !!

[Morch]

3 hours ago, observer90210 said:

1 billion dollar fine !!!!!?!!!.....Now that would make quite a few Cohiba Cuban Premium cigars, smoked on a beach in Thailand !!

 

Quote

Prince Miteb is accused of embezzlement, hiring ghost employees and awarding contracts to his own companies including a $10 billion deal for walkie talkies and bulletproof military gear worth billions of Saudi riyals.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests/future-saudi-king-tightens-grip-on-power-with-arrests-including-prince-alwaleed-idUSKBN1D506P

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And immensely encouraging to all those foreign investors that the Crown Prince is courting.

 

More like your wishful thinking. Doubt it would deter investors when the Aramco thing goes live, or future contracts of relevant suppliers being withheld. If those targeted were foreign companies or foreign nationals, perhaps.

[retarius]

Government theft of assets without due process.....I'm sure that these folks were corrupt but they should have been before a court. This has nothing to do with corruption and all to do with greed of MBS and his need to buy allegiance. 

[retarius]

2 minutes ago, retarius said:

Government theft of assets without due process.....I'm sure that these folks were corrupt but they should have been before a court. This has nothing to do with corruption and all to do with greed of MBS and his need to buy allegiance. 

It shows what your governments are supporting.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, retarius said:

Government theft of assets without due process.....I'm sure that these folks were corrupt but they should have been before a court. This has nothing to do with corruption and all to do with greed of MBS and his need to buy allegiance. 

 

Could you cite which Saudi "due process" was infringed? Saudi Arabia, like many other countries is not a democracy, nor supports the same civil protections afforded in the West, for example. That the main factor in these purges is indeed consolidation of power, does not necessitate that cases involved had "nothing to do with corruption". Not either/or.

[shackleton]

When I was in Saudi  most of the guys I worked with used to complain about the 

people at the top Princes ect  involved with corruption

getting money for basically doing nothing 

They will all be pleased now its all getting sorted out and the money being put back in the government coffers 

[Rimmer]

A troll post and reply have been removed

[Colabamumbai]

Didn't they ride camels a few years ago?

[janclaes47]

8 minutes ago, shackleton said:

They will all be pleased now its all getting sorted out and the money being put back in the government coffers 

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More like your wishful thinking. Doubt it would deter investors when the Aramco thing goes live, or future contracts of relevant suppliers being withheld. If those targeted were foreign companies or foreign nationals, perhaps.

It's clear that you haven't been following the news about the potential sale of part of Aramco and the possibility the Saudis may opt to sell that 5 percent to China instead to avoid issues having to do with transparency and governance. and the reluctance of private investors. The Chinese use a different metric from what an investor seeking profit would employ.

The massive Saudi Aramco IPO doesn't look like a great investment to many

Oil giant Saudi Aramco is readying what's set to be the biggest initial public offering ever. But as it turns out, investors might not be all that interested.

In fact, fund managers told CNBC that the Saudi energy behemoth — the valuation of which has seen estimates from $1 trillion to $2 trillion — comes up short for all three basic tests investors apply to potential IPO investments: growth, an attractive dividend and solid corporate governance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/19/saudi-aramco-ipo-saudi-arabia-oil-giant-faces-investor-doubts.html

 

The implications of shelving the Aramco IPO

https://www.ft.com/content/85f1ece4-4745-327e-9350-88466b8195bd

 

Investors Worldwide Size Up Palace Intrigue in Oil-Rich Kingdom

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/business/saudi-arabia-arrests-investors.html

 

 

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

comes up short for all three basic tests investors apply to potential IPO investments

Another path Saudi Arabia is considering is to sell a stake in Aramco privately to a handful of foreign, sovereign investors.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-10-13/saudi-aramco-ipo-delay-private-offering-not-much-better

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Another path Saudi Arabia is considering is to sell a stake in Aramco privately to a handful of foreign, sovereign investors.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-10-13/saudi-aramco-ipo-delay-private-offering-not-much-better

 

One of the reasons for that being the private investors are not lining up enthusiastically to invest in Aramco. But sovereign nations would be less focused on profitability and more able to make life difficult for the Saudis should they be seen to violate terms of the sale. The simplest way to consider the difference in viewpoints of sovereign wealth funds and private investors is that the former would analyze the benefits of the deal in terms of macroeconomics whereas private investors would use the criteria of microeconomics.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

The only thing that's clear is that you're into the crystal ball zone again. Why don't we revisit this after the deed is done? I don't know that it would matter all that much for Saudi Arabia if the buyer is a "private" investor or a state/state owned agent, So far, seems there's a lively competition for listing and handling. Doubt that when it comes down to it, there will be as great a reluctance as you hope.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

The only thing that's clear is that you're into the crystal ball zone again. Why don't we revisit this after the deed is done? I don't know that it would matter all that much for Saudi Arabia if the buyer is a "private" investor or a state/state owned agent, So far, seems there's a lively competition for listing and handling. Doubt that when it comes down to it, there will be as great a reluctance as you hope.

First off, as for  a'seems there's a lively competition for listing and handling...well, if you mean by that various exchanges want to host the IPO. sure. They don't stand to lose anything. But if you mean it's a desirable investment for private individuals or private funds,  not if the overwhelming number of business news reports about the deal are to be believed. First off, one of the most attractive features to the Saudis of having a sovereign wealth fund invest in Aramco is that they wouldn't have to do a listing and handling. Because of little things like rules and regulations.  And ifm in fact , as your mind-reading skills lead you to believe, that I hope that there will be a great reluctance, I am joined in that by most analysts looking at the situation. Try and google" aramco ipo generates lots of interest from private investors . You won't find much of recent vintage.

And the reason for the difference is important. Because it touches on the issue of other private investment in Saudi Arabia. Non state actors are very reluctant to invest there. And that kind of investment is crucial to developing the Saudi economy.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

I wasn't claiming that there is a lot of private investor interest, though, so I wouldn't have any particular reason to google what you prescribe. That's just your usual way of trying to spin posts. To point it out again, you tend to treat googled opinion columns and assessments as facts or as things that actually happened. IMO, that's jumping the gun. I also don't know that most analysts hope that there will be great reluctance, but based on your posts, I'm pretty sure you do.

[pattayadon]

Pocket change,  btw,  Jared Trump....good buddies!!!    Uh huh!

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

I wasn't claiming that there is a lot of private investor interest, though, so I wouldn't have any particular reason to google what you prescribe. That's just your usual way of trying to spin posts. To point it out again, you tend to treat googled opinion columns and assessments as facts or as things that actually happened. IMO, that's jumping the gun. I also don't know that most analysts hope that there will be great reluctance, but based on your posts, I'm pretty sure you do.

So what are you claiming? And while it's true that you can probably find via google opinions and assessment to support any point of view, it's the sources and not the means of getting them that counts. So I am using only mainstream sources. And what does a competition among exchanges about landing a big IPO say about the attractiveness of it as an investment? If nothing, why did you cite it? It's completely irrelevant to the question.

And of course, the question isn't what most serious analysts hope, which is about as relevant as what I might hope,  but what they ascertain. And again, what they ascertain seems to be almost universally not positive.

And I noticed that you dropped your expression of doubt about whether it matters if it's a state actor or private investors who buy shares in it. It matters hugely because it shows that Saudi Arabia is having trouble attracting private investors who will be crucial to its plans for development.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What I said was pretty clear, if you're having trouble comprehending it, read my post again. Not the first time this was discussed on these forum. I'm not about to search or cite articles to support a made up point of view you insist I hold.

 

What you hope for is relevant inasmuch as it paints whatever you post, which is rather obvious and repetitive. And, of course, you keep going on an angle which fits this, regardless of other points raised.

 

I haven't dropped anything, that's just the usual undue focus on specific words and phrases you specialize in. That you "notice" such things, doesn't mean what you imagine - more related to not bothering to address each and every point in your argumentative posts.

 

As said in the past, I do not share your taking opinion columns and analysis as gospel, simply because they pander to my point of view.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What I said was pretty clear, if you're having trouble comprehending it, read my post again. Not the first time this was discussed on these forum. I'm not about to search or cite articles to support a made up point of view you insist I hold.

 

What you hope for is relevant inasmuch as it paints whatever you post, which is rather obvious and repetitive. And, of course, you keep going on an angle which fits this, regardless of other points raised.

 

I haven't dropped anything, that's just the usual undue focus on specific words and phrases you specialize in. That you "notice" such things, doesn't mean what you imagine - more related to not bothering to address each and every point in your argumentative posts.

 

As said in the past, I do not share your taking opinion columns and analysis as gospel, simply because they pander to my point of view.

As i noted, I am not cherry picking articles. The views I espoused here are overwhemlingly the view of serious financial analysts. I didn't have to cherry pick because I couldn't find cherries that said the opposite.

And I didn't use any thing you might have said on other threads - although it's odd that you who make a habit of doing just that would object on those grounds. I cited what you wrote in this thread. And nothing that you wrote was relevant to the issue of whether the IPO was viewed favorably or whether it mattered if state actors rather than private investors were interested. And your citing of stock exchange interest was and remains entirely irrelevant.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What I said was pretty clear, if you're having trouble comprehending it, read my post again. Not the first time this was discussed on these forum. I'm not about to search or cite articles to support a made up point of view you insist I hold.

 

What you hope for is relevant inasmuch as it paints whatever you post, which is rather obvious and repetitive. And, of course, you keep going on an angle which fits this, regardless of other points raised.

 

I haven't dropped anything, that's just the usual undue focus on specific words and phrases you specialize in. That you "notice" such things, doesn't mean what you imagine - more related to not bothering to address each and every point in your argumentative posts.

 

As said in the past, I do not share your taking opinion columns and analysis as gospel, simply because they pander to my point of view.

Anyway, since you don't seem to understand why it's so significant that investors with macroeconomic motivations are clearly more interested than those with microeconomic motivations in investing in Aramco, I see no point in further discussing this with you.

[Morch]

 

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As i noted, I am not cherry picking articles. The views I espoused here are overwhemlingly the view of serious financial analysts. I didn't have to cherry pick because I couldn't find cherries that said the opposite.

And I didn't use any thing you might have said on other threads - although it's odd that you who make a habit of doing just that would object on those grounds. I cited what you wrote in this thread. And nothing that you wrote was relevant to the issue of whether the IPO was viewed favorably or whether it mattered if state actors rather than private investors were interested. And your citing of stock exchange interest was and remains entirely irrelevant.

 

There you go again.

 

I said nothing about cherry picking. You repeatedly try to address a point I did not make. And what you consider "relevant" is hardly saying much, given that the Aramco issue itself, is not even mentioned in the OP.  If you wish to argue with yourself over made up off topic points, go ahead.

 

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Anyway, since you don't seem to understand why it's important the investors with macroeconomic motivations are clearly more interested than those with microeconomic motivations in investing in Aramco, I see no point in further discussing this with you.

 

Whatever you say, sunshine.

 

[Trouble]

Saudi Arabia works much like Thailand and many other corrupt countries in that those in government who are responsible for awarding major government contracts receive the customary 10% commission. Nothing wrong here. A billion here, a billion there. 

[Ulic]

9 hours ago, retarius said:

Government theft of assets without due process.....I'm sure that these folks were corrupt but they should have been before a court. This has nothing to do with corruption and all to do with greed of MBS and his need to buy allegiance. 

Not entirely sure but it seems like a kind of expedited due process to me. They have admitted guilt

and are paying a big fine instead of protracted legal fight.