‘An application filed in the CBI court alleges involvement of NDTV and P Chidambaram in bribe and money laundering of Rs. 2,000 crores in 2G scam. They also state misuse and abuse of power. The application was filed in Patiala House Courts by an IT Commissioner, SK Srivastava. It states that a dummy company of NDTV at Holland is being used for alleged money laundering via Mauritius back to India.’
“NDTV has reacted to these charges as baseless and has filed a defamation suit against the person who filed the application. “NDTV has just filed a defamation suit against a man making wild allegations about NDTV – and about “prostitution in the IT dept,” tweeted Vikrama Chandra, CEO of NDTV.”
Seems nothing has come out of it till date.
Why is it that Media has not followed up this case as vigorously as it does the other scams?
Clan Mentality?
If one looks at the pattern of ownership of Media in India, you will know.
A very popular TV news media is funded by Gospels of Charity in Spain Supports Communism. Recently it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistan because Pakistan President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan . Indian CEO Prannoy Roy is co-brother o fPrakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist party of India . His wife and Brinda Karat are sisters.
Vicious: Mexican gangsters are paraded in a police photo. The country is one of the most crime-ridden places in the world as rival cartels compete to control the lucrative drugs trade
All International banks which appear to be perfectly legitimate regularly indulge in these activities.
Despite sound bites nothing may come of this investigation .
Powerhouse: HSBC headquarters in the City of London. The bank has been accused of laundering money for the Mexican mob
HSBC: THE DAMNING FINDINGS
The focus of the Senate probe was HSBC’s U.S. operations, which has its main office in New York.
HSBC used the U.S. unit as a selling point to clients outside the United States, touting its ability to handle U.S. dollar transactions.
Among HSBC’s problems, the report described the bank’s compliance division failed to investigate the suspect money.
High turnover of top compliance officials made it difficult for reform to take hold, the report said. Employees were ‘overwhelmed’ by a mounting number of suspect transactions that needed review.
‘We’re strapped and getting behind in investigations,’ one bank official wrote in June 2008.
By that time, HSBC was cutting costs to offset losses tied to subprime home loans and the brewing financial crisis.
In 2010, one disgusted top compliance official threw up his hands and quit after less than a year on the job, according to the report.
Typical of the problems inside the bank were transactions tied to Mexico, a country the report said is ‘under siege from drug crime, violence and money laundering’.
HSBC, according to the report, helped move money for a Mexican foreign-exchange dealer called Casa de Cambio Puebla that served as a hub for laundered proceeds, according to the report.
Between 2005 and 2007, there was a ‘growing flood’ of U.S. dollars moving between the exchange house and HSBC, setting off red flags inside HSBC.
Some bankers said the transfers were legal. One said the money came from Mexican landscapers working in the United States and routing money back home to their families.
HSBC ultimately closed the account in November 2007 after it received a seizure warrant from the Mexican attorney general seeking money tied to the exchange dealer, the Senate report said.
“In April 2003, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and New York state bank regulators cracked the whip on HSBC Bank USA, ordering it to do a better job of policing itself for suspicious money flows. Staff in the bank’s anti-money laundering division, according to a person who worked there at the time, flew into a “panic.”
The U.S. unit of London-based HSBC Holdings Plc quickly rallied. It hired a tough federal prosecutor to oversee anti-money laundering efforts. It installed monitoring systems for operations that had grown unwieldy during the bank’s U.S. expansion. The aim, as HSBC said in an agreement with regulators at the time, was to “ensure that the bank fully addresses all deficiencies in the bank’s anti-money laundering policies and procedures.”
Nearly a decade later, the effort has failed to satisfy law-enforcement officials.
The extent of that failure is laid out in confidential documents reviewed by Reuters that originate from investigations of HSBC’s U.S. operations by two U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
These documents allege that from 2005, the bank violated the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering laws on a massive scale. HSBC did so, they say, by not adequately reviewing hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions for any that might have links to drug trafficking, terrorist financing and other criminal activity.
In some of the documents, prosecutors allege that HSBC intentionally flouted the law. The bank created an operation that was a “systemically flawed sham paper-product designed solely to make it appear that the Bank has complied” with the Bank Secrecy Act and is able to detect money laundering, wrote William J. Ihlenfeld II, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia, in a draft of a 2010 letter addressed to Justice Department officials.
In that letter, Ihlenfeld compared HSBC unfavorably to Riggs Bank. In 2004 and 2005, that scandal-plagued Washington bank was fined a total of $41 million after it was found to have violated anti-money laundering laws, and it was acquired by PNC Financial Services.
“HSBC is to Riggs, as a nuclear waste dump is to a municipal land fill,” Ihlenfeld wrote.
The allegations laid out in the Ihlenfeld letter and other documents couldn’t be confirmed. It is possible that subsequent inquiries have led investigators to alter their views of what went on inside HSBC’s compliance operation.
As they are, the documents reviewed by Reuters, combined with regulatory filings, court documents and interviews with current and former HSBC employees, paint a damning portrait of a bank allegedly unable, and unwilling, to police itself or its clients.
HSBC’s U.S. anti-money laundering division – the people charged with ensuring that the bank toes the line of regulators and law enforcement – has experienced high turnover among executives. Since 2005, at least half a dozen overseers have come and gone. Compliance staff also encountered pushback from bankers eager to maintain relationships with lucrative clients whose dealings raised red flags.
In the Miami office – an important center for HSBC’s private-banking and retail operations – a longtime private banker was fired for alleged sexual harassment after he warned compliance officers that clients were engaged in shady dealings.
In one email exchange submitted as evidence in that case, employees debated whether the bank should help a Miami client get around U.S. sanctions by moving the client’s business to HSBC’s Hong Kong office. “I believe that the best outcome would be for the customer to open a relationship with Hong Kong just for leters (sic) of credit purposes. He travels there all the time,” private banker Antonio Suarez wrote in a 2008 email. Suarez has since left the bank and couldn’t be reached for comment.
On black money in Swiss banks,Indian Government has been dragging its feet by saying that Swiss banking laws do not allow information to be shared with others on the ground of ‘Client Confidentiality’.
This is absolute non sense.
The Indian Government is to have an agreement with the Swiss Government
If the person has not declared his Swiss account in his Country of origin,
If the Government can declare the person to have amassed wealth by Criminal means.
If the Government brings in a complaint to the Swiss Government and the concerned bank,
then the Bank on receiving the deposit if it is being made after the complaint may notify the Swiss Government to arrest the person when he comes to Switzerland for claiming the amount.
If he refuses to come, then the bank may freeze his assets.
( in case the criminal act for which the person/information is being sought is not punishable under Swiss law, one needs to book the offender under an appropriate offence that would meet with Swiss Law-some times you have to tweak the law to get Justice)
What is needed is the Political will.
Now to the laws on Swiss Banking System.
”
The Swiss banker’s requirement of client confidentiality is found in Article 47 of the Federal Law on Banks and Savings Banks, which came into effect on November 8, 1934. The article stipulates that “anyone acting in his/her capacity as member of a banking body, as a bank employee, agent, liquidator or auditor, as an observer of the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC), or as a member of a body or an employee belonging to an accredited auditing institution, is not permitted to divulge information entrusted to him/her or of which he/she has been apprised because of his/her position.”
Exceptions
In order to sidestep this law, there must be a substantial criminal allegation before a governmental agency, especially a foreign one, can gain access to account information. Tax evasion, for example, is considered a misdemeanor in Switzerland rather than a crime.
According to the Swiss Bankers’ Association Web site, however, there is also a duty for bankers to provide information under the following circumstances:
Civil proceedings (such as inheritance or divorce)
International mutual legal assistance proceedings (explained below)
International mutual assistance in criminal matters
Switzerland is required to assist the authorities of foreign states in criminal matters as a result of the 1983 federal law relating to International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Assets can be frozen and handed over to the foreign authorities concerned. Assistance in criminal matters follows the principles of dual criminality, specialty and proportionality.
Dual criminality means that Swiss courts don’t lift the requirement of bank/client confidentiality unless the act being investigated by the court is punishable under the law in both Switzerland and the country requesting the information. The specialty rule means that information obtained through the arrangement can only be used for the criminal proceedings for which the assistance is provided. The proportionality rule means the measures taken in conducting the request for assistance must be proportionate to the crime.
International mutual assistance in administrative matters
Under these proceedings, the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC) may communicate information only to the supervisory authorities in foreign countries subject to three statutory conditions:
The information given can’t be used for anything other than the direct supervision of the banks or financial intermediaries who are officially authorized and can’t be passed on to tax authorities.
The requesting foreign authority must itself be bound by official or professional confidentiality and be the intended recipient of the information.
The requesting authority may not give information to other authorities or to other public supervisory bodies without the prior agreement of the SFBC or without the general authorization of an international treaty. Information can’t be given to criminal authorities in foreign countries if there are no arrangements regarding mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the states involved.
Taxation
Swiss residents pay 35 percent tax on the interest or dividends their Swiss bank accounts and investments earn. This money is namelessly turned in to the Swiss tax authorities.
For nonresidents of Switzerland there are no taxes levied on those earnings, unless:
There is a 35 percent Swiss withholding tax on interest and dividends paid out by Swiss companies. So, if you invest in a Swiss company such as Nestlé or Novartis, then 35 percent of any dividends will be withheld as a tax regardless of where you live. The same is true if you buy bonds issued by a Swiss company. If you’re a Swiss taxpayer (or if your country has a double taxation agreement with Switzerland) then you can claim the tax back. Double taxation is when income is taxed both in your home country, as well as the country in which the income is earned.
EU Withholding Tax
On July 1, 2005, the European Union Withholding Tax came into effect to prevent residents of EU member countries from avoiding paying tax on interest earned on money deposited in foreign banks with very strong banking secrecy laws. The EU goal had been for all countries to disclose interest earnings to the home countries of their bank clients so that that money could be taxed. Several non-EU countries, Switzerland included, didn’t agree because it went against their banking privacy/secrecy laws. Now, bank clients who live in the European Union pay a withholding tax on the interest made by certain investments. This tax started at 15 percent and is gradually increasing to 35 percent by 2011. No exchange of information or taxes on capital or capital gains is levied.
If you want to pass on your account to your family (and you’re not a Swiss resident) you’re in luck because there is no inheritance tax in Switzerland for nonresidents. Your heirs are responsible for declaring the holdings to their country’s tax authorities, however.
We recognize the necessity for an exchange of information between reporting offices (Financial Intelligence Units, FIU), as Switzerland would otherwise face the threat of a suspension of its membership in the Egmont Group, which would lead to unnecessary international pressure and reputational damage.
The exchange of information must, however, be conducted in adherence to strict guidelines. For example, the information can only be exchanged in the instance of a concrete case, but not amongst all group members or beyond a specific case.
Furthermore, the information may not be passed on to other authorities in the respective country, nor may the normal administrative and legal assistance procedures be circumvented as a result thereof.
The Swiss Bankers Association will closely examine the proposal and will provide a comprehensive statement of its position on the matter during the course of the consultation process.
What is money laundering? Money laundering is the covert introduction of illegally acquired assets into the legitimate economy with the aim of disguising their true illegal origin.
This may take place in three phases:
Phase 1: placement
In this phase, the assets (primarily cash) are paid into banks and thus turned into bank money, or used to purchase assets that can be liquidated at short notice.
Phase 2: layering
The goal of this phase is to spread the money placed in phase 1. It often involves complex international transactions using, amongst other things, offshore banks and bogus companies. Another way to spread the money is via a myriad of confusing and seemingly unconnected transfers.
Phase 3: integration
The integration phase is when the assets are reintroduced into the legal economy, which may involve purchasing assets (e.g. real estate or precious metals) or shareholdings, etc.
Money laundering is usually associated with drug trafficking or organised crime. However, there are many other crimes which may be predicate offences to money laundering, e.g. embezzlement, corruption, extortion or human trafficking, to name just a few.
What does Switzerland do to against money laundering? Switzerland’s mechanisms for combating money laundering, which were established with the Agreement on Due Diligence (CDB) in 1977 and have been expanding ever since, today include provisions in the Swiss Penal Code (Art. 305bis and 305ter StGB), the Federal Act on Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Financial Sector (AMLA) and a corresponding Ordinance of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (FINMA Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance, AMLO-FINMA).
Swiss law is therefore broadly in compliance with the international recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The FATF report on the third country evaluation of April 2005 attested that Switzerland has a well functioning network of preventative measures against money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the Federal Department of Finance (FDF) did look into the implementation of individual criticisms that FATF experts had levelled at Switzerland’s anti-money laundering mechanisms. The resulting revised Anti-Money Laundering Act came into force, after the referendum period had expired unused, on 1 February 2009. The Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance was subsequently also revised, with the updated version entering into force on 1 January 2011.
The Agreement on Due Diligence (CDB), which is issued by the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) as a set of self-regulation guidelines and is revised and updated every five years, has since 1977 laid down the obligations of banks with regard to the identification of clients and beneficial owners. It prohibits active assistance in the flight of capital and tax evasion. The statutory bank auditors are commissioned by the banks and FINMA to verify bank compliance with this Agreement. Special investigators and a CDB Supervisory Board assess breaches of the Agreement, and offences are punishable by fines of up to CHF 10 million.
The IMF CChief Strauss Kahn was charged with rape in a Hotel room and was later let off on bail.
Now the case of the prosecution seems to be collapsing according to the New York Times with doubts being expressed over the credibility of the maid who leveled charges against him.
‘Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself….
Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering…’
‘The cat is now out of the bag, Empire building conspiracy is soon going to meet its natural death. It seems that all accusations against the former heads of the IMF Mr. Strauss- Kahn could come to nothing in the coming days because the creditability of the lady who was accusing him of rape
seems to be questionable after her contacts with criminals became public and she was caught receiving considerable amount of money in her bank accounts. It seems the whole story was a plot hatched against Mr. Strauss-Kahn who is known to be a firm defender of the Euro and was on his way to negotiate details of a bail-out for Greece when the accusations hit him. Well, Europe has managed the bail-out of Greece without Mr. Strauss-Kahn who lost his job in this ghastly story. The Euro is rising and plans of those who may have had sinister designs with regard to the European money that is challenging the world-wide lead of the dollar seem to collapse.’
Note that the amount has been credited as Loan after CBI caught Raja and not before.
And if somebody were to invest 200 crores,as claimed, please let me know investors who are prepared to loan(?) 200 crores in a Company as Kalaignar TV which has a paid up Capital of Rs.One lakh.
If Kalaignar TV is such a hot stock, why did not the FI s and Institutional investors grab it?
Did Kalaignar TV approach any institution for Loan and if so with what results?
‘Kanimozhi did not know what was happening and Dayalu does not know English?’
Also read what UB and India Cements have to do with Kalaignar TV.
Based on its probe conducted till date, the CBI has discovered, “the said amount of Rs 200 crore was transferred by M/s Dynamix Realty to various DB group companies that includes M/s DB Realty Limited, M/s Nihar Constructions Private Limited, M/s Eversmile Construction Private Limited, and M/s Conwood Construction and Developers Private Limited, immediately after it received the same from M/s Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Private Limited during December 2010 to February 2011.” This crucial information has served a shot in the arm for both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate that has already registered a case in this regard under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. With the CBI sharing even the documents, chargesheet and statements of witnesses in this regard, it has paved the way for ED to attach the properties of the said four companies. Once this is done, the entire bribe amount could be accounted for and reserved as “case property” to nail the lie of the accused. Moreover, another interesting aspect which the CBI has stumbled upon is the timing of the repayment. The bribe of Rs 200 crore was paid by Balwa-owned DB Realty to Kalaignar TV in 15 instalments between December 2008 and August 2009 while the refund by Kalaignar TV initiated only on December 12, 2010 when the CBI first contacted former Telecom Minister A Raja to interrogate him. As the CBI inched closer to the DMK empire based on the interrogation of Raja and other accused, the instalments for repayment increased, as a result in January 2011 there were five instalments made where a huge chunk was transferred back to Cineyug. The last instalment came on February 3, 2011, just a day after Raja was arrested. While this information forms part of crucial evidence in the hands of CBI to oppose bail for Kalaignar TV stakeholders Kanimozhi and Sharath Kumar (both owning 20 per cent equity), there are more facts which the CBI intends to produce by Monday when the bail pleas will be taken up in the SC. After Kalaignar TV stakeholders took the bribe and case investigation proceeded they realised the need to show an interest component attached with the said amount of Rs 200 crore as also tax deducted on the loan to be paid to the Government. Thus, while refunding the principal amount of Rs 200 crore, the channel arranged for an additional sum of Rs 31 crore accruing towards interest. This was transferred in three instalments to Cineyug on December 12, 2010, December 29, 2010 and February 3, 2011. A document pledging the entire equity holding of Kalaignar TV to Cineyug was signed on December 30, 2009 at a meeting where both Kanimozhi and Sharath were present. The tax accruing on the transaction was deposited with the Government in three instalments – two in December 2010 and one on February 3, 2011, giving reasons for CBI to conclude the loan theory was an “afterthought”.
Probing the trail of Rs 200 crore, which was paid to Kalaignar TV by Swan Telecom in the 2G spectrum scam, the CBI has now reached at the doors of four private companies including UB Group and India Cements.
Chief 
You must be logged in to post a comment.