Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Stolt-Nielsen SA is a large British holding company whose subsidiaries have come under close U.S. government scrutiny for obfuscating their corporate ties to Iran and Sudan.  These companies allegedly docked and transported oil from Iran and Sudan and attempted to cover up these activities by falsifying cargo documents, employing code words among captains to blur deliveries to embargoed ports and deleting Iranian names in official communications. 1  

Stolt-Nielsen also has ties to Iran via its subsidiary, Stolt Offshore, which is active in Iran’s energy sector.  With regard to the company’s ties to Sudan, Stolt Nielsen reportedly paid $95,000 to the U.S. Treasury Department to settle the allegations that it conducted business in the country and attempted to conceal it. 2

On September 6, 2006, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment charging Solt Nielson with engaging in and conspiring to suppress competition in the parcel tanker shipping industry, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1 anti-trust laws.3  This is hardly surprising as companies who are willing to do business with state sponsors of terrorism probably have very low ethical standards. 

Stolt Nielsen’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • Good governance:  Although some 400 public companies have decided that a country’s willingness to sponsor terrorism is no barrier to trade, relatively few have gone to such lengths to conceal their activities.  A failure of transparency compounds the potential damage to unwitting investors’ share value if, as seems inevitable, such behavior precipitates scandal and diminished market confidence in the company.
  • Moral and Political Cover : When leading global companies such as Stolt Nielsen partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made.  This message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts.  This message is reinforced when a firm knowingly misleads the U.S. government when we are at war with terrorism. 

1. Wall Street Journal, 11/26/02.

2. Associated Press Online, 6/24/03.

3. USDJ Supreme Court brief No. 06-97 STOLT-NIELSEN, S.A., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Center for Security Policy

Please Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *