By: Michael O’Farrell – Investigations Editor.
TWO former Goal executives have both admitted making an ‘error of judgment’ by going into business with a suspected fraudster who has been indicted for bribery involving aid contracts in Syria.
Ernest Halilov – who worked as a logistics expert for Goal in Sudan and Syria – is awaiting extradition from Kiev to face US charges of corruption related to aid projects.
The US indictment details how Mr Halilov allegedly first began bribing a Goal procurement officer with cash, a car, furniture, plane tickets and electronics as far back as 2011.
The indictment says Mr Halilov then continued seeking to rig valuable development aid contracts by bribing NGO insiders at Goal and elsewhere from 2011 until 2016, when his activities became the focus of a US investigation.
However, internal Goal files obtained by the Irish Mail on Sunday reveal that the Dublin-based charity suspected Mr Halilov was seeking to rig bids in 2012 – but failed to find proof.
These suspicions were probed by Goal’s then-audit chief, Jerry Cole, at the request of then-chief operating officer Jonathan Edgar – an expartner of RTÉ’s Claire Byrne.
Mr Cole sent a member of his audit team to investigate Mr Halilov in Sudan and their report – completed in early 2013 – found no ‘concrete evidence of fraud’.
The report highlighted ‘a number of serious irregularities in procurement’ processes that are common risk indicators of possible collusion with suppliers to commit procurement fraud.
‘At this stage it is not clear whether these weaknesses are likely to have been intentional and whether they would have resulted in financial loss to Goal and/or potential financial gains to those involved,’ the report concluded.
Despite this uncertainty, Mr Cole and Mr Edgar – the second most senior executive at Goal – then went into business with Mr Halilov later that year.
The firm they formed together – Noble House Supplies Ltd – intended to seek Goal contracts and was ultimately successful in doing so. So, too, was a sister company called Red Rose.
Mr Edgar told the MoS his business relationship with Mr Halilov was not a breach of conflict of interest procedures since Goal had not yet implemented a conflict of interest policy at the time.
He said that despite this lack of policy he had spoken to his superiors about sitting on the boards of other companies.
Mr Edgar also said he resigned from Noble House in November 2013 before the company ever received any contracts from Goal.
Nevertheless, he conceded that going into business with Mr Halilov had been a mistake.
‘Goal’s investigation found no fraud or collusion and therefore, I believed, as most senior managers in Goal did at the time, that Mr Halilov was a trustworthy and capable person,’ Mr Edgar said. ‘In hindsight, this was an error of judgment.
‘At no time was I aware of Halilov’s alleged misdeeds and I am innocent of any involvement relating to them,’ Mr Edgar said.
Mr Cole also told the MoS he had broken no conflict of interest rules and had been a ‘victim’ of Halilov.
Both men said they have emails to prove there were no conflict of interest issues raised in meetings with Goal management.
After leaving Goal, Mr Cole paid €100,000 to Noble House to buy a 50% stake in its sister firm, Red Rose, which he continues to run with a Turkish associate. Noble House has since been dissolved.
‘I cooperated with the investigation from the start; and have been cleared of any wrongdoing,’ Mr Cole said. ‘Having reviewed Mr Halilov’s activities while at Goal, the report concluded there was “no concrete evidence of fraud found”.
I therefore believed Mr Halilov had been and remained capable of performing in the relief sector with integrity; however, in retrospect, this was an error of judgment and I am among the many victims of Mr Halilov’s alleged misdeeds.’
A Goal spokeswoman said of the Halilov indictment: ‘While Goal is not a party to the legal proceedings in the US courts, we welcome the fact that progress is being made in bringing this matter to a conclusion.
It is important that the rigour of the law is brought to bear on any individual who damages the important work being done by humanitarian organisations.’
