Disclaimer: The corruption cases databases are a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. It is intended for general information purposes only. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the Database do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Neither the World Bank Group nor its officers or employees shall be liable for any losses that may result directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance upon such information.
According to Le Re?publicain of Mali (citing unnamed judicial sources) Drissa Keita, the former director of the Mali public Company for the Development of Textiles (CMDT), was accused of having awarded CMDT contracts for the delivery of packaging materials to three companies in clear violation of public rules regarding governmental contracts.
The involved companies would have received $4 billion FCFA (roughly $6m USD according to exchange rates in 2000, the period of alleged misconduct) had these contracts been honored.
Drissa Keita admitted to acting outside of his authority, being concerned with marketing the products of farmers in the CMDT zone, but claimed that the flagrant violation was still to the advantage of the local Malian peasants [Sic: from source, ‘paysans’ in French] whose interests he was charged with representing because it made it possible for them to sell goods amounting to a sum of two billion FCFA.
The criminal charges against the involved companies and Drissa Keita were resolved through mediation though the Le Re?publicain and some legal scholars questioned the legitimacy of such a resolution, debating whether or not such proceeding are allowed by statute in cases of alleged offences against public property. The involved parties claimed vindication, despite certain involved companies and Keita himself forfeiting a combined 115 million FCFA (roughly $220k USD according to exchange rates in 2008, the period of prosecution) comprised of deposits to the court that would typically be returned when those prosecuted are found innocent.
misuse (and abetting misuse) of corporate assets of a public concern
Unk (According to Le Republicain, however, it was suggested that the pursuit of a conviction would have subjected the state to a loss of face, to the detriment of anti-corruption and financial crime efforts. ["Et qu'en cas de jugement, il etait fort possible que l'Etat perde la face dans cette histoire. Toute chose qui jetterait le discredit sur cette croisade contre la corruption et la delinquance financiere."])