バスケ学連幹部が約１億１３００万円着服

バスケ学連幹部が約１億１３００万円着服

2009年5月10日21時30分

　バスケットボールの全日本大学連盟と関東大学連盟は１０日、両連盟の男性の前財務部長（５７）が昨年度までの１０年間で推定約１億１３００万円を着服していたと発表した。前部長は「借金返済や商品先物取引に使った」と認めており、すでに２２００万円を返済したという。両連盟は全額の返済を求め、刑事告訴も視野に入れている。

　発表によると、前財務部長は、会計事務所に勤務する傍ら関東大学連盟では９９年度から、全日本大学連盟でも０１年度からともに昨年度まで会計を一手に引き受けてきた。関東の財務部長に就任した直後から、関東で約３２００万円、全日本で約８１００万円を使い込んだとみられる。昨年度末の全日本の会計報告で、広告料の契約書に記載された金額と、決算書の額が違ったことから使い込みが発覚、４月の両連盟名義の口座残高はほぼゼロになっていたという。両連盟は前財務部長が作った年度ごとの決算報告書に記載された繰越金から被害額を推定したが、帳簿を作っておらず正確な金額が不明で、この日発足した調査委員会でさらに詳しく調べる。

　両連盟の年間予算は約５００校が加盟する全日本が約２８００万円、男子１２２校を統括する関東が約１６００万円。チーム登録料が収入の半分を占め、残りは大会スポンサー料や日本協会からの大会運営補助金など。調査委員会の佐々木桂二委員長（全日本大学連盟常任理事）は「歴代執行部の管理能力とチェック能力のなさが招いた事態」と長年、会計を一人に任せきりにしてきた反省も口にした。

------------------------
運営費着服：全日本、関東バスケ連盟元役員が１億円超を

2009年5月10日 20時41分　更新：5月10日 21時53分

　全日本大学バスケットボール連盟（平野正治理事長）と関東大学バスケットボール連盟（前山定理事長）は１０日、元役員（５７）が両連盟の運営費を着服していた疑いがあると発表した。元役員は、０１～０８年度の全日本連盟財務部長。関東連盟では９９～０６年度に財務部長、０７～０８年度は財務担当の副理事長を務めていた。両連盟は被害総額が約１億１３００万円に上るとみている。内訳は、全日本連盟分が８１００万円、関東連盟分が３２００万円。

　元役員は「財務部長就任直後から不正を働いた」と認め、両連盟に計２２００万円を返還。残金の返済計画を提示した。両連盟は１０日の臨時理事会で調査委員会を設置。引き続き着服金の返還を求める一方、刑事告訴や連盟の内部処分などを検討する。元役員は着服の理由に、借金の返済や先物取引での損失を挙げているという。

　３月、大会プログラムの広告主と交わした契約書と決算書の金額が食い違っていることに全日本連盟の役員が気付き、疑惑が発覚した。元役員は帳簿などを付けていなかったため、正確な被害額は不明。佐々木桂二・調査委員長は「会計に通じた職業に就いていたため、本人を信頼し切っていた。（連盟の）管理能力の無さや、チェックシステムの欠如がこういう事態を引き起こした」としている。

----------------------
Russia’s export down by 47% to $ 57 bln in Jan-Mar 2009

06.05.2009, 23.47

MOSCOW, May 6 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia’s exports decreased by 47.6 percent in the first three months of the year as compared to the same period in 2008 and reached 56.9 billion U.S. dollars, the Prime Tass economic news agency said on Wednesday, quoting a report of the Russian Federal Customs Service.

In January-March 2009, Russia’s exports to former Soviet republics dropped by 46 percent, as compared to the same months of 2008, and made up 8.6 billion U.S. dollars, Prime Tass said.

The country’s exports to the rest of the world decreased by 47.9 percent to 48.3 billion U.S. dollars, Prime Tass cited the report.

According to the Federal Customs Service, the decline in Russia’s exports in the first three months in monetary terms was caused by a drop in prices and a reduced volume of imported and exported goods, Prime Tass said.

----------------------
Japanese corporation in legal dispute with unfortunate Russian scientist
08.05.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/107524-japanese_corporation-0

Law-enforcement authorities have arrested warehouses of one of the biggest foreign shock absorber producers – Kayaba Industry, because a Russian inventor who received a patent for an absorber construction claims a 30-million-dollar compensation. Lawyers suppose that the intellectual property right case may take several years at court.

Russian scientist Oleg Tikhonenko invented an improved construction of shock absorbers in 1994. According to the law, he had to apply for a patent within six months, but he did it only in 2008. This fact lessens his chances for receiving a compensation.

However, he applied to law-enforcement authorities, and they purchased absorbers of the Kayaba Company for an investigation. Independent experts revealed that this company uses schemes patented by Tikhonenko indeed. In mid-April, its warehouse was arrested. Kayaba lodged a protest.

An official of the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) told Gazeta.Ru that the law-enforcement authorities might “overdo” their work and close the foreign warehouses without serious reasons. She emphasized that Russia just begins to work on guarding intellectual property rights of its citizens. Scientists often register their inventions only inside the country and do not apply for international patents due to the lack of finance. In this case, foreign firms may legally use an invention outside the country. Of course, they do it, and an invention receives no demand in Russia . Therefore, Kayaba’s experts will have to prove that they had begun using Tikhonenko’s invention before he gained the international patent. Lawyer Galina Romanova presumes that his patent will be canceled.

Tikhonenko says that he supports Russian manufacturers that could use his work. But most of them do not know about his invention.

-----------------------
How the US may destroy Israel? - By proxy!
08.05.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107520-Destroy_Israel-0

by Hans Vogel

The tension between national sovereignty and the forces of globalization is becoming ever more acute. The US, as the main champion of globalization, however, is at the same time the champion of the most extreme form of nationalism, namely imperialism. In fact, Israel’s worst enemy is the very nation posing as its best friend. This means that Israel’s days are numbered.

Today, the United States government champions an extreme form of national sovereignty for itself. In clear violation of its international commitments and obligations (for instance under the provisions of the WTO-treaty), the US government effectively prevents foreigners from investing in the US economy. Foreigners (Chinese) have been barred from purchasing an interest in US port activities and from taking over a US oil company. These planned takeovers were deemed a threat to US national security. Similarly, the defence and energy industries in the US have long been off-limits for foreign investors.

In 1996, the Helms-Burton Act came into effect, one of the most blatant attempts to give US laws an extraterritorial validity. Illegal from the perspective of international law, the Helms-Burton Act holds CEO’s of foreign companies personally responsible for doing business with Cuban firms owning US property nationalized in 1959. Indeed, the support for these policies is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it narrow-based. Therefore, one must assume it to be a permanent characteristic of US policy, and one that will only strengthen and be more prominent in the future.

The US implicitly denies full sovereignty to any other nation but the US. Moreover, the US regularly intimidates other nations, even its closest allies, to bring their policies in line with US interests. Thus in 2005, Israel was forced to call off military cooperation with China over US fears that the Chinese might lay their hands on sensitive high technology. The Israelis even had to sack Amos Yaron, director general of the defence ministry, who was leading the China program. In April 2006 Trevor Taylor, an influential British defense specialist, wrote that cooperation with the US is impossible since the US will not recognize any other sovereignty but its own. This attitude is practically universal among them, and at last is beginning to put even long-time alliances at risk. Interestingly enough, this latest criticism came from Britain, the closest and oldest US ally (since 1939). If the US does not even trust the British any longer, who will they trust?

The root of the problem is that the US political leadership, together with leading intellectuals and businessmen, regard their country as God’s own. Although founded in the 1770s on universalist, humanistic and even masonic values and principles, subsequent politicians have introduced religious elements. The contradictory result is visible to anyone who has ever handled a dollar bill: it carries both masonic symbols and the motto “in God we trust.”

Humanistic values have until recently been a key element of US policy, but have been jettisoned by the Bush administration since it officially uses torture as a judicial tool against perceived foreign enemies. The Obama administration shows few signs of departing from this policy. Yet the claim to embodying universalist values, which the US has sustained ever since the foundation of the republic, still has not disappeared. US (universalist) ideals and values have found their way to the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and other forms of international cooperation among sovereign states and nations.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the US has been the main champion of globalization. Indeed, what other nation could be better suited to this role than precisely the US, with its universalist roots, well-founded claims to represent universalist values and universal appeal?

The benefits of globalization are spread very unevenly. There are two major beneficiaries: the US and China. Yet whereas China has behaved in a very modest fashion on the international political stage, the US has made a mockery of the very international organizations and treaties it has been so instrumental in creating. The conquest and colonization of Iraq, a sovereign state and a UN member, was carried out in sheer contempt of the UN. The US is still refusing to sign and ratify the Kyoto protocol, purporting to curtail worldwide environmental disaster. In their fight against Iraqi freedom fighters, US forces have since 2003 been violating most articles of the Geneva conventions on a daily basis.

The question is, why would the US behave in such a way? The answer is simple: the US believes it is the true international nation. They do not really need a UN, at least not when they cannot control it. The whole world is theirs, and who can really blame them for believing that? The whole world watches insipid US sitcoms and silly Hollywood cinema, everybody sips Coca Cola and other US sodas, which will end up giving you cancer in whatever form you drink them. Everybody eats McDonald’s hamburgers, which will make you sick, overweight and miserable, and cause heart failure. The whole world consumes the trash masquerading as US popular culture and the whole world is destroying itself doing so. With people all over the world demonstrating such indifference to their own hearts, minds and stomachs, why would they care for something as alien and distant as the UN, or even their nation’s sovereignty?

Indeed, after the end of the Cold War and with the advent of full-fledged globalization, most national states have become weakened, if not vis-a-vis their citizens, than on the international level by delegating entire policy sections to supranational organizations, such as the EU member states have been doing. This is not surprising, since universalism and “globalization” are implicitly antithetical to nation states and nationalism.

On the other hand, there still remains a small number of powerful nation states with clearly independent foreign policy agendas. These include China (by the sheer weight of its population and the growth rate of its economy), Russia (on account of its nuclear armament and for being the successor to the Imperial USSR), France, Iran and Israel. Of these, Israel is arguably the most powerful. First, it can be considered one of the oldest nations on earth, since for 2,000 years the Jews, in spite of the persecutions and hardship of the diaspora, have maintained their identity. Secondly, Israel is the last best hope for Jews. They never want to have to leave again and therefore they will defend Israel’s independence and sovereignty at whatever cost. The size, quality and experience of the Israeli defense establishment are well known and need no elaboration here. It is an open secret that Israel possesses a vast nuclear arsenal and the means for delivering it.

Since it replaced France as Israel’s major ally in 1968, the US has become its closest foreign friend. It was Charles de Gaulle, however, who once remarked that France did not have friends, just interests. Thousands of years of history prove him right: nations may change their “friends,” but their interests remain the same. It is Israel’s prime concern to ensure its own survival, whereas the US will want to carry on globalization at an accelerated pace. Inevitably therefore, US-Israeli friendship must one day come to an end.

US anger at Iran (for having kicked the US out in 1979) is well-known. With more than 70 million inhabitants, Iran is among the most populous states of the Middle East (together with Egypt and Turkey). Successor to the ancient Iranian Empire (which even the Romans were never able to subdue), Iran is widely regarded as the leading Middle Eastern civilization. Moreover it is the central point of historical reference in the region. Iran has a booming economy and is sitting on a vast reservoir of oil. It is a rich country with a highly educated population and a strong middle class. Iran now has a thriving arms industry and manufactures its own tanks, fighters, missiles and ammunition. While it certainly has the technical capacity to build a nuclear bomb, it lacks the required fissile material. Meanwhile, it has developed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. Nor would it be a surprise to learn that some or all of the 250 missing nuclear warheads from the Ukraine are now in Iranian hands.

Since the US is the main proponent of globalism and universalism, it will eventually have to clash with Israel. That final showdown may not be as far off as we think. Since the conquest of Iraq in 2003, the US is firmly established and entrenched in the Middle East. It has become the strongest military power in the Middle East through its new Iraqi colony. Inevitably, its interests will collide with those of the two other local military powers, Israel and Iran. In order for the US to secure its colony and the control of local petroleum sources, it will need to keep the Arabs quiet. The best way to do so is to get rid of what Arabs hate most: the state of Israel.

Rumours about a possible US attack on Iran have not subsided since they first appeared a couple of years ago. It remains very tempting for the US to eliminate one of the two obstacles standing in the way of its total domination of the Middle East and its oil. After Iran has been wiped out, Israel will be the only state left in the region to challenge US policies. From a US point of view, this means that Israel needs to be eliminated as well.

Unconditional US support for Israel, repeatedly reaffirmed by all who come power in the US, is puzzling indeed. Israel has been perfectly able to defend itself in the past, and with its determination and nuclear arsenal it will be able to continue to do so in the future. The US has an impressive record of saving countries by destroying them. US commitment to the defence of Vietnam has crippled that country while today’s average Iraqi will be less than grateful to the US for “liberating” his country. What is the US really aiming at? The destruction of Israel? US official guarantees to Israel rather sound like a kiss of death. The US does not want rivals in the Middle East, certainly none with an agenda of their own. It is in the US national interest to take out these rivals as soon as possible.

Come to think of it, what better way in this respect for the US than to foment Israeli-Iranian animosity? The US may strike Iranian nuclear installations, but what will happen next? Who do you think the Iranians will focus their revenge on when attacked by the US? And who do you think Israel will fire its nuclear warheads at?

The new Israeli administration, led by hardliners, has now taken the lead in advocating tough treatment of Iran in order to persuade it to halt its nuclear program. The air is abuzz with rumors about Israeli plans to go it alone and attack Iran just by itself. If Israel were to attack Iran, the results would be terrible and it would expose Israel to Iranian reprisals. Indeed, Israel may well take out a big chunk of Iran's military potential, but in doing so, it would invite Iran to try answer in kind.

The latest sounds from Washington seem to suggest that the Obama administration wants Israel to tone down and abandon its aggressive rhetoric vis-à-vis Iran. However, prime minister Netanyahu does not appear to be a man to heed such advice. On the contrary, he may be pushed to do exactly what he is threatening to do: make sure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb.

I am afraid there seems to be little chance a violent clash between Israel and Iran can be avoided. Such a clash will probably eliminate both Israel and Iran from the Middle Eastern chess board. Indeed, it would be a strategic masterstroke for the US to eliminate its major military rivals in the Middle East by setting them up to destroy each other.

------------------------
Cars, Japan's driving force in Russia
12:43 | 08/ 05/ 2009

Print version

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Oleg Mityayev) - By late 2008, the Russian economy had received over $4 billion worth of Japanese investment, having soared seven times from a modest $567 million in 2006.

Up to 90% of Japanese investment is channeled into the natural resources sector. Although direct investment accounts for just 10% of the grand total, it provides access to much-needed innovative technology and advanced managerial methods. The automotive industry makes up for over 40% of direct Japanese investment in Russia.

In the mid-2000s, Japanese investors, including a number of automotive giants, began venturing into Russian markets. This trend was facilitated by skyrocketing oil prices and the influx of petrodollars into Russia. With the lack of imported vehicles on the booming Russian car market, foreign automakers found it profitable to set up production facilities in Russia itself.

In 2005, Toyota, the world's largest carmaker, became the first Japanese automotive giant to enter the Russian market. Toyota's top managers decided to build a corporate plant in St Petersburg, whose authorities started creating a cluster of car production facilities.

In June 2005, the then Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the groundbreaking ceremony at Toyota's plant in St Petersburg. In December 2007, President Putin watched the first Toyota Camry vehicle roll off the assembly line. He also attended the official ceremony of putting the plant into operation.

The agreement on building the Toyota plant in St Petersburg stipulates the relevant terms for inviting other foreign carmakers to Russia.

The Toyota plant will also comprise affiliated car component production and car body welding and painting facilities. Die cast plastic parts will also be manufactured in St Petersburg.

Consequently, Toyota will import fewer car components each year.

Toyota paved the way for other Japanese automotive giants, helping Japan to rediscover Russia.

Nissan and Suzuki also decided to build their plants in St Petersburg, while Mitsubishi Motors and French automobile and motorcycle manufacturer PSA Peugeot Citroen are planning to build a plant in Kaluga, a city in Central Russia 190 km southwest of Moscow.

However, the global economic crisis caused car sales to plunge worldwide, including in Russia. Starting with late 2008, many Japanese automakers were forced to mothball their Russian projects.

Isuzu, a major truck manufacturer, and its Russian partner Sollers have decided to postpone their plans for the launch of joint assembly of heavy-duty trucks in Russia.

A stronger yen stifles Japanese car exports to Russia, while companies operating their own plants in Russia have better chances of selling their vehicles.

From January to March 2009, 24,755 new Japanese cars were exported to Russia, marking a fivefold decline on the January-March 2008 period (123,400 vehicles).

The Japanese automotive industry quickly decreased exports to Russia. As of late 2008, Russia made up for over 8% of new Japanese car exports, accounting for less than 4% in January-March 2009. Last year, Russia ranked second after the United States in terms of Japanese car imports - now it has dropped to seventh place.

In this situation those Japanese companies that started implementing projects in Russia do not plan to quit because a global economic recovery will begin either in 2009 or next year, and the Russian car market will gradually retain its high potential.

The Russian automotive sector is to receive additional Japanese direct investment following the crisis. Japanese car component producers could also relocate to Russia, thereby supporting Japanese car plants here.

Additional investment in Russia's automotive industry will make it possible to increase the share of innovative and competitive economic sectors. The aforesaid Japanese investment will also provide Russia with up-to-date management concepts, as well as a skilled workforce.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

------------------------
個人マネー、社債へ動く　証券大手５社、販売額４倍

　大手証券が個人投資家を対象とした社債の販売を強化している。2008年度の大手5社の販売額は前の年度比4.3倍と大幅に拡大。株式市場の混乱で個人マネーが値動きの激しい金融商品を敬遠、相対的にリスクが限定的な大企業が発行する社債へと向かったためだ。預貯金よりも利回りが高いため、各社は社債がマネーの有力な受け皿になると見ており、今後も積極販売する方針だ。

　昨年度の個人向け社債の市場規模は2兆144億円と、07年度の4370億円から一気に拡大した。運転資金を必要とする企業・金融機関が機関投資家だけでなく、個人にも積極的に社債を発行したためだ。(07:01)

------------------------
Deutsche Bank Was Top Currency Trader in 2008, Euromoney Says
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Lukanyo Mnyanda

May 7 (Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Bank AG was the biggest currency trader in the $175 trillion foreign-exchange market for a fifth year, widening the gap with second-place UBS AG, according to a survey by Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc.

Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest lender, captured almost 21 percent of the market last year, down from the 21.7 percent share the Frankfurt-based bank had in 2007, Euromoney said today in an e-mailed statement. UBS, based in Zurich, had 14.6 percent in 2008, the survey showed.

Barclays Capital, a unit of London-based Barclays Plc, held on to third place with a share of more than 10 percent, while Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, the biggest state-owned U.K. bank, overtook Citigroup Inc. for fourth spot, Euromoney said.

Credit Suisse Group AG and BNP Paribas SA moved into the top 10 last year, the survey showed. The 10 biggest traders increased their overall market share to 80 percent from 76 percent, Euromoney said.

Currency trading surged to a record even as the credit squeeze led to billions of dollars of bank losses and prompted the Federal Reserve and U.S. government to provide $12.8 trillion to bail out financial institutions and revive lending.

Trading increased amid greater fluctuations in the value of currencies and wider discrepancies between the prices investors were willing to pay and those demanded by sellers, according to the Euromoney report.

Euromoney said the survey was based on 12,150 responses,

Securities firms sometimes use the Euromoney rankings as a marketing tool, saying banks with a large market share can offer lower prices and better services.

-------------------------
Taboo broken in US Middle East offensive

By Harvey Morris in New York

Published: May 10 2009 19:16 | Last updated: May 11 2009 09:42

A period of high-level diplomacy on the Middle East opens in New York on Monday, promising further insights into an emerging strategy from Barack Obama’s administration that is already raising concerns among Israel’s supporters.

On Monday, King Abdullah of Jordan said the US was promoting a “57-state solution” in which the entire Muslim world would recognise Israel. But he also warned that the new US administration had little time, before fresh violence erupted, to promote a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

US vice president Joe Biden
Setting the tone: US vice president Joe Biden
A US official last week broke a long-standing taboo by referring to Israel’s nuclear weapons in a speech at the United Nations, and Joe Biden, vice-president, delivered a message to the biggest US pro-Israel lobby group that he warned they were “not going to like”.

The Russians and the US have been working together on a Security Council statement that is almost certain to reaffirm support for a two-state solution to the conflict, something Benjamin Netanyahu, the new Israeli prime minister, has been reluctant to endorse.

”If there is procrastination by Israel on the two-state solution or there is no clear American vision for how this is going to play out in 2009, then all the tremendous credibility that Obama has worldwide and in this region will evaporate overnight if nothing comes out in May,” King Abdullah said in an interview with The Times of London. ”If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months.”

The New York diplomatic round opens with a ministerial-level meeting of the United Nations Security Council, hosted by Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister. David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, his British and French counterparts, are among other ministers of the 15-state body expected to attend.

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, will not be there but the US will be represented at ministerial level by Susan Rice, the US permanent representative at the UN, who is a member of the president’s cabinet.

After a meeting Mr Lavrov on Thursday, Mr Obama said an opportunity existed to reset the relationship between the US and Russia on a range of issues, including nuclear proliferation, Iran and the Middle East.

Mr Netanyahu is due in Washington on May 18 for talks with Mr Obama, who is also due to meet the Egyptian and Palestinian leaders.

A clearer picture of administration policy will not emerge until after that round of meetings. However, Mr Biden set the tone last week when he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) Israel had to work towards a two-state solution.

He told the lobby group’s annual conference: “You’re not going to like my saying this, but [Israel should] not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement ... ”

On the same day, Rose Gottemoeller, US assistant secretary of state, told a non-proliferation meeting at the UN: “Universal adherence to the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] – including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – remains a fundamental objective of the United States.”

Urging the four non-signatory nuclear weapon states to join the worldwide treaty did not represent a radical change in policy from previous administrations, but one expert said naming Israel marked a “major shift”. Since the US discovered Israel’s nuclear weapons ­programme in the 1960s, Israel has consistently refused publicly to confirm or deny that it has a nuclear arsenal.

“This is a very big issue to take on,” Stephen P. Cohen, a former Middle East adviser to the US National Intelligence Council told the Financial Times. He linked the naming of Israel to Mr Obama’s policy of opening dialogue with Iran, which Israel, western and Arab states fear is poised to join the nuclear weapons club.

He said encouraging Israel at least to acknowledge the existence of its nuclear weapons might be part of a strategy to persuade Iran to be more forthcoming and even to claim some credit if it led to reducing nuclear tension in the Middle East.

Tehran has been relatively cool towards Mr Obama’s overtures for a dialogue, while Israel is unhappy at the idea of a US-Iranian rapprochement. “Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the whole world,” Shimon Peres, Israeli president, told Aipac last week.

However, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iranian deputy foreign minister, cautiously welcomed a shift in US ­policy when he told the non-proliferation meeting in New York: “US officials have recently pledged to change their approach towards nuclear weapons and have expressed their intention to move towards nuclear ­disarmament.”

-----------------------------
Gas billionaire claims fraud over lost unit

By Stefan Wagstyl in London, Thomas Escritt in Budapest,,and Roman Olearchyk in Kiev

Published: May 8 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 8 2009 03:00

A new row erupted yesterday in the murky east European gas trade when Dmitry Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire, claimed he had lost control of a key subsidiary through the fraudulent actions of a renegade employee.

The dispute over the ownership of Emfesz, a big Budapest-based gas and energy company, comes weeks after Mr Firtash was squeezed out of the Ukrainian gas trade under the terms of a new Russian-Ukrainian contract signed after the January gas supply crisis.

Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, agreed to supply Ukraine directly, cutting out Rosukrenergo, a company jointly owner by Gazprom, Mr Firtash and another Ukrainian businessman.

In the latest argument, which raises fresh concerns about Europe's gas security, Mabofi, a company wholly owned by Group DF (Mr Firtash's holding company), alleged its 100 per cent stake in Emfesz had been "fraudulently transferred" to RosGas, a Swiss-based company.

Mabofi claimed that, unbeknown to Mr Firtash, Istvan Goczi, the Emfesz chief executive, had used old powers of attorney to carry out the transaction, which had been registered with the Hungarian authorities. Mabofi added that it had no information on the beneficial ownership of RosGas but one of its directors was Tamàs Gazda, a Hungarian lawyer, who was formerly employed by Emfesz, "under the direct instructions" of Mr Goczi.

"[Cyprus-registered] Mabofi is now actively pursuing all of its legal rights in Hungary, Cyprus and Switzerland, and is confident that the ownership of Emfesz will be restored to its rightful owner as soon as possible," said Mabofi in a statement.

Robert Shetler-Jones, a Group DF director, said the "fraudulent and illegal" share transfer had come as a complete shock to the group and to Mr Firtash.

At Emfesz's offices an employee, who declined to give his name, turned down requests to speak to Mr Goczi or Mr Gazda, saying neither was in the country. He said in an e-mail that according to company records Emfesz now belonged to RosGas and Mabofi was its previous owner.

Yesterday's development follows Emfesz's efforts to secure gas supplies after the end of Rosukrenergo's Ukrainian contract. Emfesz announced last week it was switching its gas purchases from Rosukrenergo to RosGas, the first time RosGas's name was publicly -mentioned.

Emfesz then said RosGas belonged "to Gazprom interests". The claim was immediately denied by Gazprom, which said: "Gazprom has no relation to RosGas. It is not part of Gazprom."

Asked yesterday to clarify any connections between RosGas and Gazprom, the Emfesz employee said RosGas would soon publish information. Sergey Kupriyanov, a Gazprom spokesman, declined to comment.

Emfesz has been a key element in Mr Firtash's business empire, with pre-tax profits in 2007 of 4.3bn forints on revenues of 179bn forints (£570m). It supplies about 20 per cent of Hungary's gas, has export contracts elsewhere in the region and plans a 2,400 megawatt power station.

Group DF has long made far more money from supplying gas via Rosukrenergo and Emfesz to central Europe than from Ukraine, where it claims to have made losses. It has been under immense political pressure since Yulia Tymoshenko returned to power last year as Ukrainian prime minister, pledging to cut out Rosukrenergo. Vladimir Putin, her Russian counterpart, agreed this year to exclude intermediaries.

The deal left unclear what would happen to Rosukrenergo's non-Ukrainian gas trade but the company's difficulties have multiplied, notably with the Ukrainian authorities taking control of its gas stores.

----------------------------
Talk to Russia, remember Georgia

Published: May 10 2009 19:36 | Last updated: May 10 2009 19:36

When even Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s combative envoy to Nato, has something nice to say, it is fair to speak of improvements in relations between Moscow and the west.

“We do not think Nato is lost for us as a partner,” said Mr Rogozin on Friday in a bid to draw a line under recent disputes over spies, diplomatic expulsions and Nato exercises in Georgia.

His comments reflect a general will in Russia and the US to stick with the “reset” in ties proposed by President Barack Obama.

This is all to the good. The alleged spying and the consequent expulsions are standard diplomatic fare. No reason to get excited. The Georgian exercises, coming after last year’s war, were more sensitive. But, as Moscow knew, they were planned before the conflict, so were in no sense a provocation.

This leaves the way clear for Mr Obama to follow his strategy of engaging Russia on his priority issues – Iran, Afghanistan and nuclear non-proliferation – while trying to avoid bilateral rows. Out go futile efforts to lecture Russia on its democratic rights. In comes hard-headed diplomatic realism.

The first fruits are likely to come later this year with a new arms control treaty. This is welcome in itself and for the precedent it will set for the rest of the world.

Moscow also seems willing to co-operate more closely on Afghanistan, and with good cause since Russia lies uncomfortably close to the danger zone. Iran is different: it is unclear whether Moscow is ready to put much pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme – or whether such pressure would work.

But the real test of the Obama approach to Russia will come in how the US responds to Moscow’s claims for primacy in its “near abroad”, the former Soviet Union. Washington has postponed talk of soon bringing Ukraine and Georgia into Nato, and has gone quiet on plans for missile shield bases in eastern Europe.

But Russia wants more and demands a say on all strategic matters in the region, not least energy supplies. The US must not abandon the former Soviet republics to a renewed Russian domination. Washington cannot offer Georgia as much support as it gives, for example, the Baltic states, but Russia must not be allowed a free hand.

Much will depend on events in two key countries – Ukraine and Georgia – which are both wracked by instability, as was shown last week in Georgia’s apparent failed coup. Mr Obama’s carefully defined Rsussia strategy could yet fall foul of unexpected incidents in Kiev or Tbilisi.

---------------------------
US belatedly learns to listen to the lesson from Japan

By Gillian Tett

Published: May 9 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 9 2009 03:00

In recent months, Japan's sorry banking history has provided the world with plenty of reasons to worry about America. Now, however, it might offer a crumb of comfort, too.

The reason? In part, it lies with those stress tests which Washington has just conducted on its largest 19 banks.

During most of the past two years, the American leadership has been in a state of procrastination and denial in relation to its banking woes: first it tried to pretend that the financial woes were not too serious, since they were "contained". Then it insisted that free market pressures would be enough to force the banks to come clean about their mess - without the need for the government to act.

In reality, the Americans were not at all unusual in taking that stance: when Japan's banks first became plagued with bad loans in the early 1990s, the government in Tokyo took an identical stance - and continued denying the scale of woes for almost a decade.

But precisely because the Japanese were such past masters of procrastination - and learnt the hard way what that can do - they have been quietly dubious about much of what Washington has said about the banking woes in the past two years.

As long ago as the autumn of 2007, for example, Daisuke Kotegawa, a canny former financial bureaucrat who was central to Japan's own banking clean up, pointed out to me that what was missing from the American debate was any effort to conduct an audit of Western banks.

For Kotegawa is convinced that it was only when the Japanese government finally went into its banks and did a thorough, independent review of their operations - and then published the collective bad loan estimate and forced the banks to plug any capital gaps - that the Tokyo financial dramas started to heal.

The point is: if you let banks themselves count their bad loans, not only are they apt to lie - but investors will disbelieve anything they say, even if they do tell the truth. "What is needed [to solve the credit crisis] is not [just] cash but wiping out widespread mistrust," Kotegawa observed back then.

Now, at last, it would seem that men such as Tim Geithner are finally - belatedly - learning that lesson too (and Mr Geithner is a man who knows this Japanese tale only too well since he worked there himself in the 1990s).

You can argue at length about whether the stress tests are completely "correct" or not. But what is undisputable is that they have taken place in a fairly thorough manner. In a world that has been marked by cognitive fog, in other words, investors now have something tangible to cling to. At last, there is a sense that someone is in charge - and a bottomless pit might not be so bottomless after all.

That is potentially very important for sentiment. Back in the 1990s, when Japan's government was procrastinating and fudging, there seemed to be no limit to just how big the estimates of bad loan numbers could become: they started the decade at around $50bn, but then rose to over $1,000bn (and Goldman Sachs even slated in a $2,000bn, which back then seemed unimaginably large).

But when the Japanese finally performed their own versions of a stress test, those ever-rising projections suddenly stopped growing, not least because confidence started to return - and the wider economy picked up. These days, economists now guess that Japanese credit losses were actually around $800bn - which is very large, but less frightening than $2,000bn.

There is, of course, no guarantee that America can repeat exactly that trick. One crucial difference is that men such as Kotegawa only had the Japanese banks to worry about. Mr Geithner does not share that luxury: irrespective of whether he has measured bad loans at American banks correctly, who knows what is sitting in European banks now?

Nor does America have the luxury of sitting in a world where there are other export markets that are booming - a sharp contrast to Japan, which started to enjoy an economic uplift when Chinese demand boomed soon after it reformed its banks.

Moreover, another reason for feeling cautious is that the slant of American policy still appears to be more focused on avoiding damaging bank collapses rather than trying to build truly vibrant institutions that could lend money again. Simply removing the patient from the critical list, in other words, does not make him truly healthy again - let alone ensure that the economy will properly heal. Recapitalisation is a necessary not sufficient condition for recovery, as the history of Japan shows.

Yet, even with those caveats, the fact that the stress tests have now taken place is certainly reason to cheer. The only crying shame is that it took such a ridiculously long time for the American administration to listen to that lesson from Japan - while many of Mr Geithner's counterparts in Europe continue to ignore it, even today.

--------------------------
中東湾岸３航空会社、10年春にも成田就航　競争激化

　【ドバイ＝松尾博文】アラブ首長国連邦（ＵＡＥ）アブダビ首長国のエティハード航空、同ドバイ首長国のエミレーツ航空、カタール航空の3航空会社が2010年春にも成田空港に乗り入れる。3社の最高経営責任者（ＣＥＯ）らが日本経済新聞の取材に答えた。旅客便では中東のアラブ湾岸産油国から成田への初の定期路線となり、乗客の獲得競争が激しくなりそうだ。

　日本とＵＡＥ、カタール政府間の航空交渉がそれぞれ決着、3社は「成田空港の発着枠の最終確認を待っている」（エティハードのジェームズ・ホーガンＣＥＯ）。エティハードとエミレーツはそれぞれ週5便、カタール航空は週7便の運航を計画している。 (18:55)

--------------------------
スズキ、09年3月期最終黒字確保　アジアの利益が日本を上回る

　スズキが11日発表した2009年3月期の連結決算は、最終的なもうけを示す純利益が前の期比66％減の274億円となり黒字を確保した。世界的な販売減や円高で大幅減益となったが、主力のインドでは販売が増加。初めてアジアの利益が日本を上回り、連結決算を下支えした。

　売上高は14％減の3兆48億円。世界販売台数は230万6000台と4％減ったが、インドは「スイフト」などがけん引し、72万2000台と2％伸びた。減税などで「1月に過去最高の販売を記録するなど年明け以降は堅調」（鈴木修会長）という。

　全体の営業利益は769億円と49％減少。このうちアジアの営業利益は353億円と37％減にとどまり、初めて日本（287億円）を上回った。12日に日産自動車とマツダの決算発表が控えるが、自動車10社で前期に最終黒字を確保したのは、小型車や効率経営に強みがあるスズキ、ホンダ、ダイハツ工業の3 社だけだったもようだ。