AirAsia chairman Tony Fernandes has been named in a bribery case involving Boeing and his former Formula 1 team Caterham.
The Malaysian entrepreneur entered the sport in 2010 under the Lotus banner, initially as Lotus Racing before becoming Team Lotus in 2011, before taking over the British sportscar brand in 2012 and using the Caterham name.
After three years stuck at the back of the grid, however, Fernandes sold the team in 2014 before later entering administration in October of that year and finally being dissolved in early 2015.
This case, however, refers to a sponsorship deal Fernandes had with Boeing's parent company EADS, who featured prominently on the car between 2011-2014, which, the UK's Serious Fraud Office claims, included an exclusivity between the planemaker and AirAsia in breach of the 2010 Bribery Act.
“The improper payment consisted of $50 million (and Airbus employees also offered but did not pay an additional $55 Million) paid to directors and/or employees of AirAsia and AirAsia X airlines as sponsorship for a sports team," Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice explained.
“The sports team was jointly owned by AirAsia Executive 1 and AirAsia Executive 2 but was legally unrelated to AirAsia and AirAsia X.”
Fernandes was swift to respond to the allegations, issuing a statement along with executive chairman Datuk Kamarudin bin Meranun.
“We categorically deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct on our part as directors of AirAsia," it read.
“We would not harm the very companies that we spent our entire lives building up to their present global status.
“Caterham F1, the company alleged to have been sponsored improperly by Airbus, was at the relevant time a Formula 1 racing team that had gone around the globe promoting amongst others AirAsia, AirAsia X, GE and Airbus.
“Throughout the period we were shareholders in Caterham, the company made no profit and was eventually disposed of for [£1] in 2014.
“From start to finish, this was a branding exercise and not a venture to make profit.”
More details will emerge as the case continues.
