Enron Mail

From:john.novak@enron.com
To:mark.haedicke@enron.com, lance.schuler-legal@enron.com
Subject:Re: Cuiaba 480 MW Power Project - GasMat Criminal Proceeding
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:43:00 -0700 (PDT)

FYI, the criminal proceeding was settled yesterday w/o the indictment being
accepted by the judge -- a good result for us. It's worth noting that Celina
did an excellent job handling this.

Rgds,
John

p.s. note that the rulers are plastic, not wood . . .
---------------------- Forwarded by John Novak/SA/Enron on 04/18/2001 12:38
PM ---------------------------


Celina Ozorio
04/18/2001 11:42 AM
To: Peter E Weidler/NA/Enron@Enron, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Peter N
Anderson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Celso
Bernardi/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: John Novak/SA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Blaine/ENRON@enronXgate, Eddy
Daniels/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cuiaba 480 MW Power Project - GasMat Criminal Proceeding

The hearing for the GasMat criminal proceeding took place yesterday in
Cuiab?. GasMat succeeded in making a settlement with the prosecutor's office
and the case was dismissed. The prosecutor has actually apologised for the
mistake they made in offering the indictment without proposing a previous
settlement. For that reason, the judge did not accept the indictment and the
prosecutor proposed that GasMat renders community services by manufacturing
2000 plastic rulers with the following encryption: "Minist,rio P?blico do
Estado de Mato Grosso - call the Minist,rio P?blico at 65-612-2005 to report
environmental crimes". GasMat accepted the penalty and the settlement was
made (conditioned to the delivery of the rulers in 30 days), the caveat is
that GasMat will not be able to benefit from Law 9.099/95 (i.e. to settle in
a new criminal proceeding) for a period of 5 years. GasMat does not keep
any criminal record.

Please let me know if anyone needs a copy of the sentence. Thanks.

Regards,
Celina
---------------------- Forwarded by Celina Ozorio/SA/Enron on 04/18/2001
10:49 AM ---------------------------


Celina Ozorio
04/09/2001 12:54 PM
To: Laine A Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: John Novak/SA/Enron@Enron, Peter E Weidler/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle
Blaine/ENRON@enronXgate, Eddy Daniels/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cuiaba 480 MW Power Project - GasMat Criminal Proceeding

Laine:

The prosecutor's office has presented an indictment against GasMat requesting
the suspension of the criminal proceeding if GasMat provides community
services, i.e. the 2000 rulers. The suspension of the proceeding implies in
a probation period of two years during which GasMat cannot be called into any
other new proceeding. According to verbal understandings with outside
counsels, since the violation is a "minor crime", the prosecutors should
have tried a settlement before offering the indictment. One the other hand,
the judge has not yet "formally" received the indictment. In that view,
one of our possible defenses is to try to reverse this situation and propose
a settlement before the acceptance of the indictment by the judge so that
GasMat would be free from the 2 years probation period. However, even if
GasMat does a settlement it would still face a future limitation in which it
won't be able to benefit from Law 9099/95 (Law of Special Judgements) for
minor violations, but in neither the cases GasMat will be considered a
"primary convict". Not to be able to benefit from Law 9099/95 would be a
problem if the prosecutor's office decides to offer an indictment based on
the other two "Autos de Infra??o" issued by IBAMA. Apparently, the only way
to be absolutely free for any charge is by presenting the defense on the
proceeding and proving that the Contractor was, in fact, the violator.

I am still awaiting a formal position from the outside counsels as to which
course of action should be taken. They are still reviewing the documents and
the jurisprudence. As soon as I have their feedback I will inform you.

With respect to a concern that Pete had - why not making a settlement with
the prosecutor's office before going into Court? - I need to explain that
the Criminal Procedural Law prescribes that once the prosecutor's office
offers the indictment, the State Court not only has a prerogative but also
an obligation to carry on with the proceeding. Even if a settlement is
possible, it needs to be made in the records of the proceeding and overlooked
by the judge.

Regards,
Celina



Laine A Powell@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
04/09/2001 08:10 AM
To: Celina Ozorio/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: John Novak/SA/Enron@Enron, Peter E Weidler/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Cuiaba 480 MW Power Project - GasMat Criminal Proceeding

Celina -

Pls provide the status of our defense to this criminal proceeding.

rgds

Laine

---------------------- Forwarded by Laine A Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
04/09/2001 10:09 AM ---------------------------


Christiaan Huizer
04/09/2001 12:51 PM
To: bboeh@opic.gov, Frank.Kluesener@kfw.de
cc: Celina Ozorio/SA/Enron@Enron, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Peter N
Anderson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Eddy Daniels@Enron, John
Novak/SA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Cuiaba 480 MW Power Project - GasMat Criminal Proceeding

A criminal proceeding has been moved against GasMat. The criminal proceeding
seems to be a result from the irregular deforesting at Piraputanga Ridge. In
September, 2000, the IBAMA (federal environmental body) started an
environmental investigation at two ridges where a directional plataform was
being built and concluded that the deforested area was greater than the
licensed. As a result, IBAMA installed two administrative proceedings
"Autos de Infra??o" and, as a consequence, issued a fine for both
proceedings. Auto n. 085007 relates to Ridge 10 and the description of the
infraction is: "To destroy native forest, transplanting 20 trees and
replanting them to prevent from being penalized". Auto n. 085006 relates to
the "Serra Piraputanga" and the description is "to execute drilling services
in the Piraputanga Ridge to install the pipeline in area greater than the
authorized." The Mato Grosso judge issued a notice determining that GasMat's
legal representative appears in Court on next April 17, 2000.

More information will be provided as soon as available.

Regards,

Christiaan