Coll 28/39 ‘Persia: Printed Correspondence 1929-1936’ [‎13r] (36/1174)

137
given •to meSfo'f ^ t0 W be -
presentatives of Skor!» whn *1 Koads Communications by re-
Swedish Saffh
bridges m Mazanderan and the Netherlands Harhom- w„,.i J? aI] " a \ so
are constructing the No-Shahr harbour and who hoped to a 7 ,
.ontiact for the development of Bandar Shahpur. P Various Persian 000 °
tractors were also said to have given bribes Onlv one
mentioned in the trial but never, curiously enough bv name 1 TV WaS
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited. Two of the chief accused Men ^
SSed^f rer- 5 6 7 "^ 1 f ^ Mini^of ColSo^eT
i* 6 , Com P an y’ s representative, sums
01 Kiais 27,000 amd Itials 7,500 respectively m connection with a contract
for explosives. They were convicted on these and other charges and sen-
l' ears . 'mpnsonment each and to fines of Rials 339,500 and
Kials -73,500 respectively. Mr. Issakoores the Company’s Tehran ao-ent
was convicted of acting as an intermediary for Mr. Lubin, and was sen-
tenced to six months imprisonment.
3. How far the charges connected with Mr. Lubin are well-founded I
am unable to say. In March last Mr. Lubin strongly denied the accusa
tions which appear to have been based on statements made by Koores during
preliminary examinations. The defence on these charges appears to have
been that Koores’ statements on the subject were contradictory, that no
record of the payments appeared in his 1 books and that Mr. Lubin was
known always to be borrowing from Koores for current expenditure and so
is not likely to have had available here such large sums to hand over to
Koores for use as bribes, as he is alleged to have done. On behalf of Koores
it was argued that so talented a linguist as Mr. Lubin, who was further well
acquainted with^many highly placed personalities in Tehran, would have
had no need of Koores’ services as an intermediary in such transactions.
The Court does not appear to have been impressed by these arguments.
4 It is interesting that no attempt whatever has been made to prose
cute any of the foreigners whose names have been mentioned in the proceed
ings, the excuse apparently being that they all most obligingly turned King’s
evidence. Most people in Tehran seem to think the accused were guilty
and deserved all they got. The only excuse made on their behalf is that
they and many other Government servants like them are quite unable on the
small salaries they receive to keep up the position they are now practically
bound to maintain. They have therefore no alternative but to accept
bribes, which they regard more as a payment for services rendered than
anything else.
5. The recent trial has received as much publicity as those of Mohamed
Ali Mansur and Monsieur Reza Afshar. There have been many references
to the acuteness of the Judges’ comments and questions and to the able
arguments of counsel on either side. Evidently it was desired to show the
world how far the administration of justice has advanced in this country.
It remains to be seen whether this series of trials will do anything to raise
the standard of honesty in Persian public life.
6 . Shortly after the conclusion of the trial it was announced that
Monsieur Sadr, the Minister of Justice, had resigned. It is rumoured that
he was in fact dismissed because the judges in the present trial had taken
bribes from some of the accused. There is also a story in circulation that
the highly respectable Monsieur Rezaquli Hedayat, the President of the
Court of Appeal, who presided over the trial of Monsieur Ali Mansqur, is
being dismissed as well. I have not, however, been able to obtain any
confirmation of this latter rumour and the real reason of Monsieur Sadr’s
dismissal must at least remain open to doubt v
7. I am sending copies of this despatch to the Foreign Secretary to the
Government of India No. 212.