**4.1 Relevant facts about the country and its government**


### **4.2 Relevant facts about the MNC and involved personnel(s)**

Basic information on the company may be found in the following translated version of the full judgement given by Judge Trine Standal of the Asker and Baerum District Court:

*"Scancem International ANS was incorporated on September 1st, 1986, with international cementation as its aim. The owners were Euroe and Noroem with 50% each. The Heidelberg group took over as owner in 1998. Scancem International ANS was* 

*Bribery Practices of Three MNCs in the Host Countries: An Examination of the Issue from HRM… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104810*

*involved in extensive bribery and corruption in a number of countries in Africa, including Ghana. In Ghana, it owns a subsidiary named Ghana Cement Works Ltd. (GHACEM). Scancem International ANS appointed Tor Egil Kjelsaas as head of the African division. He was one of Scancem International ANS's most trusted managers. He was also the one with the local contacts. Tor Egil Kjelsaas was educated in Germany. He has worked in the Noroem system and subsequently for Scancem International ANS when it was incorporated, since the late 1960s. He was head of Scancem International ANS's African division. He worked for Scancem International ANS until 1999, and then acted as a consultant to the company over a two-year period" [26].*

According to the records, as of 1991, the Government of Ghana's (GoG's) share in Ghacem, was 75%. The rest 25% was held by Scancem of Oslo, Norway (24.5%) together with Dr. J.A. Addison (0.5%) [27]. Sounding critical of Scancem's activities in Ghana since 1992, when the Government of Ghana began selling its 75% stake in it to the Norwegians, the journalists who could not see any ethical examples worth emulating from that Norwegian company, demanded from the country's minister of international development what his government intends doing about the social impact of the imbalances that Ghacem's unfair industrial practices have had on Ghana [28].

#### **4.3 Relevant information about the case**


the tax authorities or by those for whom those receiving the money are acting or working. As such, it is impossible to provide proof by the party handing over the money in cash that the money actually has been handed over" [26].

• The bribe was transferred in the form of a consultation fee [33].
