To Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
I respond below to the explanation furnished by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley pursuant to widespread criticism of the application moved by the Government of India in the Black Money Case in the Supreme Court of India through Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and of the position adopted by the BJP Government before the Supreme Court. This statement dated 18 October 2014 by Arun Jaitley is reproduced below.
I remind you that the BJP led by you contested the last general election invoking your anti-corruption credentials and your party promised the people of India that you would bring the black money looted from the nation and lying in banks overseas back to India.
Unfortunately, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is misleading the country through his statement. There is no legal impediment to the immediate release of names of persons having undisclosed bank accounts overseas. On the contrary, Indian law demands that these names be disclosed so that a fair and impartial investigation and prosecution can follow.
Arun Jaitley's specious arguments intended to mislead can be easily exposed as follows.
The Government of India is in receipt of information that certain high net-worth Indian residents and citizens have maintained and/ or continue to maintain foreign bank accounts in Switzerland and in other tax havens. These bank accounts were not disclosed to Indian authorities.
The Government of India can safely assume that a Swiss bank account would only be used to hold a fairly large sum of money.
The Government of India knows the names of these individuals/ entities and based upon the Indian income tax records of these individuals/ entities the Government of India is aware that these foreign bank accounts were not disclosed in income tax filings and therefore held unaccounted and undisclosed income from unknown sources.
In several cases, this money would most likely be the proceeds of criminal activity including corruption. This part requires further investigation.
However, the Government of India already knows the extent to which the funds in these accounts contain undisclosed income of India residents/ citizens and which funds are the subject matter of tax evasion.
Tax evasion is a criminal offence in India.
International treaties cannot modify domestic criminal law.
The Government already has the evidence to immediately charge these individuals/ entities with tax evasion and with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (available online at http://finmin.nic.in/law/moneylaunderingact.pdf). The Government of India can then take recourse to the provisions of Chapter IX of this statute to seek further information and cooperation from the governments of the countries in which these bank accounts exist.
Under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the burden of proof that the proceeds of crime are untainted property is on the accused.
This statute gives very wide powers to the relevant Indian authorities for search, discovery, inspection, collection of evidence and investigation in respect of the offence of money laundering. An officer of a banking company can be compelled to provide evidence and the production of bank records can also be compelled. The reach of this power is not limited to Indian banking companies. Officers of foreign banks can be summoned by Indian authorities under this statute.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley misleads when he states that the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and Germany (available online at http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/agreements/doubletaxation/20.php) prevents the Government of India from disclosing names of Indian persons/ entities (obtained from the German Government) having overseas bank accounts until such persons are charged in a Court of Law.
Article 26 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany reads as under:
"Article 26
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Any information received by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) involved in the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered by this Agreement. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.
2. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:
a. to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;
b. to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State;
c. to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (order public)"
Mr Arun Jaitley's statement reproduced below in full contains the following (misleading) statement on the issue of the impact of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. He writes:
"Independent of the above, the Supreme Court of India in the "Black Money Case" had directed the Government of India to furnish the names to the petitioner which have been given by Germany to India. These names were given to the petitioner who made them public. The Germans strongly objected to this as a violation of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which was entered between Government of India and Germany on 19th June, 1995. The present NDA Government has unfortunately inherited the legacy of that DTAA. We may have negotiated a better deal. If we scrap the treaty, we get no further information. The covenant to the treaty is that the names of the account holders and information received thereunder will only be disclosed when charges are filed in court. They obviously cannot be utilized for political propaganda or for political mileage."
A reading of Article 26 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between Germany and India establishes that since the names referred to the above statement of Arun Jaitley were disclosed in public judicial proceedings, their disclosure could not have amounted to a violation of the Indo-German DTAA.
Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA provides that the protection or confidentiality accorded to any information received under the treaty is only to the extent of protection that such information would be entitled to under Indian domestic law. The protection/ confidentiality / secrecy accorded to such information cannot exceed the level to which such protection exists under Indian law.
If the information received prima facie discloses the commission of a crime, then under Indian law such information cannot be accorded any confidentiality. Any investigation and prosecution of a crime under Indian law is required to be public. Indian law does not countenance secret investigations/ prosecutions of either tax evasion or money laundering by state agencies and such secrecy would violate several guarantees under Indian law and the Indian Constitution. Particularly evidence requiring investigation of a public figure active in politics or occupying a public position (for e.g., within the government) for either tax evasion or money laundering ought to be publicly disclosed in public interest and such disclosure would be required by Indian law.
Further Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA specifically permits the disclosure of information to courts and judicial/ administrative authorities involved in the assessment/ collection of taxes and in the enforcement of any laws and/ or in the prosecution of any offences. There is therefore no bar to the Government of India disclosing these names in pending judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court of India or pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court or of any other Indian Court/ tribunal or authority during the process of applying Indian law.
Article 26 specifically permits the disclosure of information received in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 further makes clear that the protection of secrecy accorded by paragraph 1 does not impose upon India the obligation to carry out administrative measures at variance with Indian laws or Indian administrative practice. Therefore, India is entitled to treat information received under the DTAA in the same manner in which it would treat similar information under Indian law.
If Indian tax or enforcement authorities acquired information that an individual was holding undisclosed income in an undisclosed bank account, then such information would under Indian law and administrative practice result in a public investigation. The individual being investigated/ prosecuted would not have the right to remain anonymous.
The same principle would apply even if such investigation/ prosecution was activated based upon information becoming available to Indian authorities under the DTAA.
Therefore India does not have the obligation under the DTAA to keep this information private and the names of individuals secret because such obligation does not exist under Indian law.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is misleading the country by arguing otherwise.
The statement that German authorities have objected to the Government of India making these names public is not supported by any evidence. The context or exact nature of such objection if any has not been disclosed. Given that the publicly stated positions of the UPA government and of present Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on this issue are so misconceived, misleading and fallacious, one could not be faulted for wondering if the alleged German protests have been fabricated by the Government of India.
Clause (b) of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA is also relevant. It clarifies the obligation on Germany to provide information to the India State. This obligation extends to the extent to which such information is obtainable under the laws of India or to the extent it is obtainable under the administrative procedures of Indian authorities.
Indian authorities have the power to compel the production of such information under Indian tax laws and under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Information and evidence relevant to tax evasion or to money laundering is obtainable by Indian government authorities under Indian law. Therefore the German government is obligated to provide such information to India upon request under the DTAA.
Arun Jaitley is therefore misleading the nation when he states that disclosing names of persons holding bank accounts overseas will violate DTAA obligations of the Government of India.
Arun Jaitley is misleading the nation that the DTAA between India and Germany has been violated by the disclosure of names or that this treaty in any manner prevents Indian authorities from disclosing these names in proceedings under Indian law where such disclosures would normally be made.
Nobody in India is asking for disclosure of names as political mileage or political propaganda and Arun Jaitley is deliberately mis-framing the issue with intent to mislead.
The names must be disclosed in accordance with Indian law which according to Article 26 of the DTAA is not varied by the fact of execution of the Indo German DTAA.
Indian law governs the disclosure of these names and if permitted under Indian law, there will be no violation of any treaty as Mr Arun Jaitley misleadingly seeks to convey.
Arun Jaitley further states as follows:
"All that the Government has requested the Supreme Court is to clarify that it has not prohibited the Government of India to enter into Treaties with countries wherein a commitment may be made by the Government to maintain confidentiality of information received as per international standards."
This position is also fallacious. Under International law and Indian law, the sovereign power to execute treaties vests in the Government of India and is constrained only by the Indian Constitution. This sovereign power to sign and execute treaties vests in the executive power of the Indian State. This sovereign power can neither be enlarged nor restricted by Indian Courts.
The Indian government does not therefore need to seek permission from the Supreme Court of India before entering into an international treaty.
Further, as explained in detail above and based upon an analysis of Article 26 of the DTAA between Germany and India, the accepted international practice is that the level of secrecy accorded to any information exchanged does not exceed the level of protection accorded to such information under the domestic laws of ether contracting party. Therefore India need not agree to accord more secrecy to such information than such information would normally be entitled to under Indian domestic law.
The entire statement of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is therefore a malafide disinformation campaign intended to mislead the Indian people. The vast difference between the facts and the law and the statement of Arun Jaitley discloses such a clear intent to mislead and obfuscate issues and the law on the disclosure of these names that it can only be concluded that this misleading statement and the application moved in the Supreme Court are deliberate attempts to cover up the money laundering and tax evasion crimes of certain powerful, well-connected, influential and high net-worth individuals. The intent behind this statement and the court application is to subvert the application of Indian law to the investigation and prosecution of these crimes and to facilitate a cover up to enable some persons to evade the legal consequences of their unlawful acts.
The BJP government's present position on this issue therefore amounts to a subversion of law and of its constitutional mandate and duties. The BJP must change stance and I request you to ensure that the attempted cover-up of black money crimes of powerful persons be stopped and that the law be allowed to take its course unobstructed by vested interests within your government.
Seema Sapra
The statement of Arun Jaitley is reproduced below:
Saturday, 18 October 2014
"The NDA's approach on Black Money is doggedly persistent - Not Adventurist"
- Arun Jaitley
I am a little surprised by some of the headlines in today's newspapers which state that the NDA Government has done a U turn on the issue of black money stacked up in Swiss bank accounts. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Let me begin by saying that the NDA Government WILL NOT withhold any information, including names of account holders who have stashed black money abroad, from the public; but the names will be revealed after following the due process of completing investigations and reaching conclusions about quantum of unaccounted money. After doing so, all the information including the names of account holders will become public when quoted in court proceedings arising from complaints to be filed by the Income Tax Department against tax offenders. Any premature and out of court disclosure of the names of account holders would not only vitiate the investigations but will enable such account holders to get away with their offences. It will also violate India's Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) with other countries and will choke receipt of all further information from those countries.
The NDA Government took over in the last week of May, 2014. For 3 years, the UPA Government has been refusing to appoint the SIT directed by the Supreme Court. At the first very Cabinet Meeting, Shri Narendra Modi Cabinet decided to appoint the SIT. The SIT has been effectively functioning since then.
On October 15, 2014, a team of officials led by Revenue Secretary and comprising of Chairman, CBDT has signed a Joint Statement with the appropriate authorities in Switzerland with regard to investigation into black money stacked in Swiss banks. The four important aspects of that agreement are:
(i) With regard to the list available with India of account holders in the HSBC, where Indian tax authorities have conducted independent investigations, the Swiss would provide India with details upon our furnishing of adequate evidence in this regard.
(ii) Whenever India has some information/ documentary evidence, the Swiss would confirm the authenticity or otherwise of that evidence.
(iii) This would be done in a time bound manner.
(iv) Discussion would now start on a bilateral agreement on automatic exchange of information in the banking system. If this bilateral arrangement is arrived at, it will be an important milestone in detection of black money held by Indians in the Swiss banks.
Independent of the above, the Supreme Court of India in the "Black Money Case" had directed the Government of India to furnish the names to the petitioner which have been given by Germany to India. These names were given to the petitioner who made them public. The Germans strongly objected to this as a violation of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which was entered between Government of India and Germany on 19thJune, 1995. The present NDA Government has unfortunately inherited the legacy of that DTAA. We may have negotiated a better deal. If we scrap the treaty, we get no further information. The covenant to the treaty is that the names of the account holders and information received thereunder will only be disclosed when charges are filed in court. They obviously cannot be utilized for political propaganda or for political mileage.
The choice before the NDA Government is clear; violate the Treaty and get no names in future or abide by the Treaty, collect evidence, file charges in courts and let the names become public so that the account holders can be named and shamed. One act of adventurism of violating the treaty and discussing the name could perhaps jeopardise future cooperation from the reciprocating state.
All that the Government has requested the Supreme Court is to clarify that it has not prohibited the Government of India to enter into Treaties with countries wherein a commitment may be made by the Government to maintain confidentiality of information received as per international standards. If such a commitment to maintain the confidentiality is not given we will not receive any information about Indians hiding their money in other countries including offshore financial centres and tax heavens. Thus the clarification sought from the Supreme Court is only to facilitate collection of information about illegal money stashed abroad.
Nobody has ever suggested that the names should not be made public. They should be made public in accordance with the existing due process of law. If that process is violated, you will never get to know the names in future. The NDA Government stands committed to detect the names, prosecuting the guilty and making them public. We are not going to be pushed into an act of adventurism where we violate the treaties and then plead that we are no longer able to get the cooperation of reciprocating states. Such an approach may actually help the account holders. Adventurism will be short-sighted. A mature approach will take us to the root of the matter.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Response to Arun Jaitley's disinformation campaign on black money issue from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, director@aiims.ac.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, david.jones6@usdoj.gov, daniel.filor@usdoj.gov, amy.barcelo@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov, sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov, alicia.simmons@usdoj.gov, joyce.vance@usdoj.gov, kenyen.brown@usdoj.gov, karen.loeffler@usdoj.gov, andre.birotte@usdoj.gov, melinda.haag@usdoj.gov, laura.duffy@usdoj.gov, john.walsh@usdoj.gov, david.weiss@usdoj.gov, ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, robert.o'neill@usdoj.gov, pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov, wifredo.ferrer@usdoj.gov, michael.moore@usdoj.gov, sally yates <sally.yates@usdoj.gov>, edward.tarver@usdoj.gov, alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov, florence.nakakuni@usdoj.gov, wendy.olson@usdoj.gov, james.lewis@usdoj.gov, patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, stephen.wigginton@usdoj.gov, david.capp@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, nick.klinefeldt@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, cp.ggn@hry.nic.in, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Response to Arun Jaitley's disinformation campaign on black money issue from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, director@aiims.ac.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, david.jones6@usdoj.gov, daniel.filor@usdoj.gov, amy.barcelo@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov, sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov, alicia.simmons@usdoj.gov, joyce.vance@usdoj.gov, kenyen.brown@usdoj.gov, karen.loeffler@usdoj.gov, andre.birotte@usdoj.gov, melinda.haag@usdoj.gov, laura.duffy@usdoj.gov, john.walsh@usdoj.gov, david.weiss@usdoj.gov, ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, robert.o'neill@usdoj.gov, pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov, wifredo.ferrer@usdoj.gov, michael.moore@usdoj.gov, sally yates <sally.yates@usdoj.gov>, edward.tarver@usdoj.gov, alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov, florence.nakakuni@usdoj.gov, wendy.olson@usdoj.gov, james.lewis@usdoj.gov, patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, stephen.wigginton@usdoj.gov, david.capp@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, nick.klinefeldt@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, cp.ggn@hry.nic.in, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
To Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
I respond below to the explanation furnished by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley pursuant to widespread criticism of the application moved by the Government of India in the Black Money Case in the Supreme Court of India through Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and of the position adopted by the BJP Government before the Supreme Court. This statement dated 18 October 2014 by Arun Jaitley is reproduced below.
I remind you that the BJP led by you contested the last general election invoking your anti-corruption credentials and your party promised the people of India that you would bring the black money looted from the nation and lying in banks overseas back to India.
Unfortunately, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is misleading the country through his statement. There is no legal impediment to the immediate release of names of persons having undisclosed bank accounts overseas. On the contrary, Indian law demands that these names be disclosed so that a fair and impartial investigation and prosecution can follow.
Arun Jaitley's specious arguments intended to mislead can be easily exposed as follows.
The Government of India is in receipt of information that certain high net-worth Indian residents and citizens have maintained and/ or continue to maintain foreign bank accounts in Switzerland and in other tax havens. These bank accounts were not disclosed to Indian authorities.
The Government of India can safely assume that a Swiss bank account would only be used to hold a fairly large sum of money.
The Government of India knows the names of these individuals/ entities and based upon the Indian income tax records of these individuals/ entities the Government of India is aware that these foreign bank accounts were not disclosed in income tax filings and therefore held unaccounted and undisclosed income from unknown sources.
In several cases, this money would most likely be the proceeds of criminal activity including corruption. This part requires further investigation.
However, the Government of India already knows the extent to which the funds in these accounts contain undisclosed income of India residents/ citizens and which funds are the subject matter of tax evasion.
Tax evasion is a criminal offence in India.
International treaties cannot modify domestic criminal law.
The Government already has the evidence to immediately charge these individuals/ entities with tax evasion and with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (available online at http://finmin.nic.in/law/moneylaunderingact.pdf). The Government of India can then take recourse to the provisions of Chapter IX of this statute to seek further information and cooperation from the governments of the countries in which these bank accounts exist.
Under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the burden of proof that the proceeds of crime are untainted property is on the accused.
This statute gives very wide powers to the relevant Indian authorities for search, discovery, inspection, collection of evidence and investigation in respect of the offence of money laundering. An officer of a banking company can be compelled to provide evidence and the production of bank records can also be compelled. The reach of this power is not limited to Indian banking companies. Officers of foreign banks can be summoned by Indian authorities under this statute.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley misleads when he states that the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and Germany (available online at http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/agreements/doubletaxation/20.php) prevents the Government of India from disclosing names of Indian persons/ entities (obtained from the German Government) having overseas bank accounts until such persons are charged in a Court of Law.
Article 26 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany reads as under:
"Article 26
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Any information received by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) involved in the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered by this Agreement. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.
2. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:
a. to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;
b. to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State;
c. to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (order public)"
Mr Arun Jaitley's statement reproduced below in full contains the following (misleading) statement on the issue of the impact of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. He writes:
"Independent of the above, the Supreme Court of India in the "Black Money Case" had directed the Government of India to furnish the names to the petitioner which have been given by Germany to India. These names were given to the petitioner who made them public. The Germans strongly objected to this as a violation of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which was entered between Government of India and Germany on 19th June, 1995. The present NDA Government has unfortunately inherited the legacy of that DTAA. We may have negotiated a better deal. If we scrap the treaty, we get no further information. The covenant to the treaty is that the names of the account holders and information received thereunder will only be disclosed when charges are filed in court. They obviously cannot be utilized for political propaganda or for political mileage."
A reading of Article 26 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between Germany and India establishes that since the names referred to the above statement of Arun Jaitley were disclosed in public judicial proceedings, their disclosure could not have amounted to a violation of the Indo-German DTAA.
Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA provides that the protection or confidentiality accorded to any information received under the treaty is only to the extent of protection that such information would be entitled to under Indian domestic law. The protection/ confidentiality / secrecy accorded to such information cannot exceed the level to which such protection exists under Indian law.
If the information received prima facie discloses the commission of a crime, then under Indian law such information cannot be accorded any confidentiality. Any investigation and prosecution of a crime under Indian law is required to be public. Indian law does not countenance secret investigations/ prosecutions of either tax evasion or money laundering by state agencies and such secrecy would violate several guarantees under Indian law and the Indian Constitution. Particularly evidence requiring investigation of a public figure active in politics or occupying a public position (for e.g., within the government) for either tax evasion or money laundering ought to be publicly disclosed in public interest and such disclosure would be required by Indian law.
Further Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA specifically permits the disclosure of information to courts and judicial/ administrative authorities involved in the assessment/ collection of taxes and in the enforcement of any laws and/ or in the prosecution of any offences. There is therefore no bar to the Government of India disclosing these names in pending judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court of India or pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court or of any other Indian Court/ tribunal or authority during the process of applying Indian law.
Article 26 specifically permits the disclosure of information received in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 further makes clear that the protection of secrecy accorded by paragraph 1 does not impose upon India the obligation to carry out administrative measures at variance with Indian laws or Indian administrative practice. Therefore, India is entitled to treat information received under the DTAA in the same manner in which it would treat similar information under Indian law.
If Indian tax or enforcement authorities acquired information that an individual was holding undisclosed income in an undisclosed bank account, then such information would under Indian law and administrative practice result in a public investigation. The individual being investigated/ prosecuted would not have the right to remain anonymous.
The same principle would apply even if such investigation/ prosecution was activated based upon information becoming available to Indian authorities under the DTAA.
Therefore India does not have the obligation under the DTAA to keep this information private and the names of individuals secret because such obligation does not exist under Indian law.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is misleading the country by arguing otherwise.
The statement that German authorities have objected to the Government of India making these names public is not supported by any evidence. The context or exact nature of such objection if any has not been disclosed. Given that the publicly stated positions of the UPA government and of present Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on this issue are so misconceived, misleading and fallacious, one could not be faulted for wondering if the alleged German protests have been fabricated by the Government of India.
Clause (b) of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Indo-German DTAA is also relevant. It clarifies the obligation on Germany to provide information to the India State. This obligation extends to the extent to which such information is obtainable under the laws of India or to the extent it is obtainable under the administrative procedures of Indian authorities.
Indian authorities have the power to compel the production of such information under Indian tax laws and under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Information and evidence relevant to tax evasion or to money laundering is obtainable by Indian government authorities under Indian law. Therefore the German government is obligated to provide such information to India upon request under the DTAA.
Arun Jaitley is therefore misleading the nation when he states that disclosing names of persons holding bank accounts overseas will violate DTAA obligations of the Government of India.
Arun Jaitley is misleading the nation that the DTAA between India and Germany has been violated by the disclosure of names or that this treaty in any manner prevents Indian authorities from disclosing these names in proceedings under Indian law where such disclosures would normally be made.
Nobody in India is asking for disclosure of names as political mileage or political propaganda and Arun Jaitley is deliberately mis-framing the issue with intent to mislead.
The names must be disclosed in accordance with Indian law which according to Article 26 of the DTAA is not varied by the fact of execution of the Indo German DTAA.
Indian law governs the disclosure of these names and if permitted under Indian law, there will be no violation of any treaty as Mr Arun Jaitley misleadingly seeks to convey.
Arun Jaitley further states as follows:
"All that the Government has requested the Supreme Court is to clarify that it has not prohibited the Government of India to enter into Treaties with countries wherein a commitment may be made by the Government to maintain confidentiality of information received as per international standards."
This position is also fallacious. Under International law and Indian law, the sovereign power to execute treaties vests in the Government of India and is constrained only by the Indian Constitution. This sovereign power to sign and execute treaties vests in the executive power of the Indian State. This sovereign power can neither be enlarged nor restricted by Indian Courts.
The Indian government does not therefore need to seek permission from the Supreme Court of India before entering into an international treaty.
Further, as explained in detail above and based upon an analysis of Article 26 of the DTAA between Germany and India, the accepted international practice is that the level of secrecy accorded to any information exchanged does not exceed the level of protection accorded to such information under the domestic laws of ether contracting party. Therefore India need not agree to accord more secrecy to such information than such information would normally be entitled to under Indian domestic law.
The entire statement of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is therefore a malafide disinformation campaign intended to mislead the Indian people. The vast difference between the facts and the law and the statement of Arun Jaitley discloses such a clear intent to mislead and obfuscate issues and the law on the disclosure of these names that it can only be concluded that this misleading statement and the application moved in the Supreme Court are deliberate attempts to cover up the money laundering and tax evasion crimes of certain powerful, well-connected, influential and high net-worth individuals. The intent behind this statement and the court application is to subvert the application of Indian law to the investigation and prosecution of these crimes and to facilitate a cover up to enable some persons to evade the legal consequences of their unlawful acts.
The BJP government's present position on this issue therefore amounts to a subversion of law and of its constitutional mandate and duties. The BJP must change stance and I request you to ensure that the attempted cover-up of black money crimes of powerful persons be stopped and that the law be allowed to take its course unobstructed by vested interests within your government.
Seema Sapra
The statement of Arun Jaitley is reproduced below:
Saturday, 18 October 2014
"The NDA's approach on Black Money is doggedly persistent - Not Adventurist"
- Arun Jaitley
I am a little surprised by some of the headlines in today's newspapers which state that the NDA Government has done a U turn on the issue of black money stacked up in Swiss bank accounts. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Let me begin by saying that the NDA Government WILL NOT withhold any information, including names of account holders who have stashed black money abroad, from the public; but the names will be revealed after following the due process of completing investigations and reaching conclusions about quantum of unaccounted money. After doing so, all the information including the names of account holders will become public when quoted in court proceedings arising from complaints to be filed by the Income Tax Department against tax offenders. Any premature and out of court disclosure of the names of account holders would not only vitiate the investigations but will enable such account holders to get away with their offences. It will also violate India's Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) with other countries and will choke receipt of all further information from those countries.
The NDA Government took over in the last week of May, 2014. For 3 years, the UPA Government has been refusing to appoint the SIT directed by the Supreme Court. At the first very Cabinet Meeting, Shri Narendra Modi Cabinet decided to appoint the SIT. The SIT has been effectively functioning since then.
On October 15, 2014, a team of officials led by Revenue Secretary and comprising of Chairman, CBDT has signed a Joint Statement with the appropriate authorities in Switzerland with regard to investigation into black money stacked in Swiss banks. The four important aspects of that agreement are:
(i) With regard to the list available with India of account holders in the HSBC, where Indian tax authorities have conducted independent investigations, the Swiss would provide India with details upon our furnishing of adequate evidence in this regard.
(ii) Whenever India has some information/ documentary evidence, the Swiss would confirm the authenticity or otherwise of that evidence.
(iii) This would be done in a time bound manner.
(iv) Discussion would now start on a bilateral agreement on automatic exchange of information in the banking system. If this bilateral arrangement is arrived at, it will be an important milestone in detection of black money held by Indians in the Swiss banks.
Independent of the above, the Supreme Court of India in the "Black Money Case" had directed the Government of India to furnish the names to the petitioner which have been given by Germany to India. These names were given to the petitioner who made them public. The Germans strongly objected to this as a violation of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which was entered between Government of India and Germany on 19thJune, 1995. The present NDA Government has unfortunately inherited the legacy of that DTAA. We may have negotiated a better deal. If we scrap the treaty, we get no further information. The covenant to the treaty is that the names of the account holders and information received thereunder will only be disclosed when charges are filed in court. They obviously cannot be utilized for political propaganda or for political mileage.
The choice before the NDA Government is clear; violate the Treaty and get no names in future or abide by the Treaty, collect evidence, file charges in courts and let the names become public so that the account holders can be named and shamed. One act of adventurism of violating the treaty and discussing the name could perhaps jeopardise future cooperation from the reciprocating state.
All that the Government has requested the Supreme Court is to clarify that it has not prohibited the Government of India to enter into Treaties with countries wherein a commitment may be made by the Government to maintain confidentiality of information received as per international standards. If such a commitment to maintain the confidentiality is not given we will not receive any information about Indians hiding their money in other countries including offshore financial centres and tax heavens. Thus the clarification sought from the Supreme Court is only to facilitate collection of information about illegal money stashed abroad.
Nobody has ever suggested that the names should not be made public. They should be made public in accordance with the existing due process of law. If that process is violated, you will never get to know the names in future. The NDA Government stands committed to detect the names, prosecuting the guilty and making them public. We are not going to be pushed into an act of adventurism where we violate the treaties and then plead that we are no longer able to get the cooperation of reciprocating states. Such an approach may actually help the account holders. Adventurism will be short-sighted. A mature approach will take us to the root of the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment