<p><a href="/en/afganistan/kabul" class="glossify-link">KABUL</a>’s central bank officials had asked it for bribes amounting to USD 350,000.</p>
<p>Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB) officials demanded bribes, 10% of the value of a contract the company signed with the central bank in 2017, UNICON Ltd said in a statement.</p>
<p>The statement came in response to a DAB press release of July 1, containing ambiguities regarding the British company after it refused to pay the bribes.</p>
<p>The consultancy firm said it entered in ‘good-faith’ into the contract valued at USD 3.5 million with DAB in November 2017 and was shortly thereafter solicited by DAB officials for bribes amounting to 10% of the contract value.</p>
<p>UNICON insisted it not engage in any way and anywhere in corrupt activities, and it flatly refused to give way to the solicitation and to pay the bribes demanded of it.</p>
<p>“In retaliation for not paying the bribes demanded of it, UNICON was subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment by officials within DAB that included the non-payment of its invoices,” the statement added.</p>
<p>In June 2019, UNICON recalled, it ‘blew the whistle’ on those within DAB who had sought bribes from it and those who supported them.</p>
<p>As a result of its efforts to expose the corrupt, UNICON received reassurances and promises in London and elsewhere from DAB, which were subsequently shown to be false.</p>
<p>“UNICON’s integrity served only to prolong the scheme of harassment that it had been subjected to at DAB for months,” the company maintained.</p>
<p>While supporting his actions in dismissing those suspected of involvement in corrupt practices, the company commended recent efforts of Acting Governor Ajmal Ahmadi to eradicate bribery and fraud within the bank.</p>
<p>UNICON believed the new acting governor was the first senior official within DAB to show leadership and resolve in countering corruption with the institution.</p>
<p>On the payment purportedly received by UNICON “without supreme council approval and without a budget line item”, the firm denied getting any illegal payments from DAB.</p>
<p>UNICON said it was not aware of DAB’s accounting and management practices in this regard. All payments that UNICON received from DAB related exclusively to services provided and were made against fully legitimate and supported invoices;</p>
<p>UNICON did make a payment of USD 47,591 (not USD 45,000 as claimed in the press release) to an entity owned in whole or in part by a DAB official, but the press release is inaccurate in describing that payment as “a suspicious bank transfer”.</p>
<p>The payment, as DAB was aware of, was for food and office accommodation owed by UNICON to DAB, as it was a line budget in the contract and services were provided to UNICON by DAB.</p>
<p>According to the firm, the payment was recorded properly in UNICON’s accounts and DAB was informed in writing that the official was paid that sum to discharge its debt to DAB. It is unknown to UNICON whether DAB subsequently took steps to recover the USD 47,591 from its former official.</p>
<p>“UNICON performed all of its contractual obligations under its contract with DAB and it is inaccurate to imply in any way that UNICON was paid in the absence of delivering its work product.”</p>
<p>It was still owed USD 530,000, UNICON claimed, taking pride in its ability to achieve a successful completion in spite of the <a href="/en/environment" class="glossify-link">environment</a> in which it operated and the financial losses that it had to incur.</p>
<p>pr/mud</p>
