IndiaAgainstCorruption

A119,Kaushambi,Ghaziabad201010.UPPh:09868219486,09891148748, Email:indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com,www.indiaagainstcorruption.org

Date: June 22, 2012

To, Shri Pranab Mukherjee Finance Minister of India Finance Ministry, New Delhi

Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2012 in response to the allegations of corruption made by India Against Corruption. It is unfortunate that your response conceals and distorts facts at several places. You have alleged that you did not receive our earlier letter through which we had informed all the 15 ministers about the allegations that we propose to make and had sought their response. We are surprised that you have not received the letter because we have already received response from your colleagues including Mr. Salman Khurshid and Mr. SM Krishna. The letter was hand delivered to your office. We have a copy of acknowledgement from your office also. You have alleged that we have concealed the fact that the matter is sub-judice. This is completely wrong because we have clearly mentioned the following: A Public Interest Litigation was filed by an organization viz. Centre for Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court seeking an independent investigation into the allegations of payment of commission in the Scorpene submarine deal. Pursuant to the High Court order the CBI conducted a preliminary enquiry and filed a report before the court. It appears that the CBI did not do any investigation into the emails, phone records of the accused etc. and closed the case saying that no evidence was found. The petitioner in the said PIL specifically asked for the CBI report but the same was denied by the CBI claiming privilege. However it appears from the email of C Edmonds Allen

dated 16th April 2012 that the aforementioned report was given to Abhishek Verma who was one of the accused. Our response to your letter is as follows: 1. Navy war room leak: You say in your letter that the Navy war room leak contained only commercial information. In your interview dated February 12, 2006 to Karan Thapar, you stated that no criminal investigation was needed in this case as the information leaked through the Pen Drive was of commercial nature and did not have any bearing on the security of the country. However, under public pressure you were forced to hand over the case to CBI on Feb 18, 2006. In its chargesheet filed in Trial Court, the CBI has listed the information that was contained among the leaked information. Some of it is as follows which clearly indicates that the leaked information was of critical value to the security of country and not just of commercial nature as claimed by you. a. Top Secret details of the vulnerable areas and vulnerable points in Indias Air defence network b. Documents related to Pak War Game which would determine the Indian Navys counter planning c. Printouts pertaining to Creeks, including the important Sir Creek d. Assets of BSF, its infrastructure, training of BSF water wing personnel e. Standing Operating Procedure for Pechora Missiles Project It is clear from the above that the leaked information was critical to the security to the country. Therefore Sir, serious questions arise as to why did you try to protect those who were trading the security of the country by yourself announcing that the information contained in the Pen Drive was of commercial nature? Besides, there has been a series of deliberate delays to enable the accused to escape or clear out any evidence as recorded below: The war room leak was discovered by Air Force Intelligence in May 2005. However, the first Board of Inquiry by Naval HQs was established only in July 2005. What caused this delay? The Naval War Room Leak case and the Naval and Air Force inquires revealed that there were civilians involved in receiving damaging secrets from the Naval War Room Leak. The leak was discovered in May 2005.

Then why was the case handed over to CBI only on February 18, 2006 almost a year after the leakage took place? 2. Scorpene deal case: Sir, the allegations in this case are very serious. The allegation is that some middle men received 4% commission on behalf of Congress party which happens to be the ruling party, in Scorpene deal. The CBI is directly controlled by the Government. Therefore, we have no faith in CBI inquiry and investigations. Had CBI been effective and independent there would have been no need for a separate Lokpal. If you think that nothing wrong took place in Scorpene deal, then you should not be scared of facing an independent investigation. Else, it creates a suspicion in the minds of people. It has been stated by you that the emails published in the newsmagazine Outlook on the basis of which the PIL was filed were forged. We are attaching at Annexure A details of how these mails are genuine. This Annexure also contains additional evidence in the form of call details. 3. Rice Export Scam: The Government of Ghana in a 7 page letter demanded investigations into the role of the then External Affairs Minister and the Commerce Minister. You happened to be the External Affairs Minister at that time. Is it not the first case of its kind that a foreign government has asked the Government of India demanding investigations against specific Ministers? Did it ever happen in the past? Yet no independent and credible investigations have happened in that case so far, barring an internal enquiry done by Commerce Ministry. 4. Interference in the functioning of SEBI: We are also attaching a letter, as Annexure B, written by SEBI member Shri. KM Abraham to Prime Minister complaining that you and your office have been repeatedly interfering in the functioning of SEBI and trying to influence the proceedings at SEBI against powerful corporate interests including Reliance, Sahara, Bank of Rajasthan, etc. (Annexure B). Mr. Abraham has accused that the Chairman of SEBI Mr. Sinha was under illegitimate pressure from the Finance Minister and his office. SEBI is a quasi-Judicial body yet, it is alleged that Mr. Sinha used to ask his officers to prepare briefing notes in sensitive cases before every visit to Delhi, which tantamount to interference in administration of justice. Mr. Abraham has remarked with concern:

A message is now spreading that cases against the influential and the powerful might put officers in SEBI to undue risk and scrutiny. A feeling is now gradually becoming pervasive in the investigative arm that it would be easy now for offenders violating laws and regulations relating to the securities markets to thwart the enforcement process itself, by approaching SEBI through the Ministry of Finance. This will, in no time, incapacitate the investigative machinery in SEBI. Needless to say, it does not bode well for the safety and integrity of the markets and for the investors. SEBI will be rendered toothless in fulfilling its mandate that Parliament has entrusted it under the SEBI Act to protect investors and the safety and integrity of the markets.
Mr. Abrahams letter, obtained through an RTI query filed with the PMO,

makes it clear that the pressure on SEBI Chairman UK Sinha came from the big man Pranab Mukherjee and the lady Omita Paul. Abraham further wrote: The admissions of the chairman in his own words about the need to manage some of the cases now live in SEBI, about the interest that the Union Finance Minister has in some of them, the admission that Smt Omita Paul is behind what is happening, the difficulty that he (Sinha) is experiencing in interacting with key ministry officials suggest to me that Shri Sinha is being pressured to intervene in several cases that are currently being dealt within SEBI. 5. Interference in appointment of key officials: When we raised the matter of ministers corruption between public on 26th May 2012, we received many emails related allegations against all ministers. Mr. Arun Agrawal, who is a credible voice in India, has shared a note in your regard. Please see note at Annexure C on how Ms Omita Paul, your advisor, has been interfering in the appointments of Chairmen of UTI and SEBI. 6. Proximity to Reliance: More recently the conversation between Nira Radia and the former finance secretary and Member of the Rajya Sabha, N.K. Singh sheds important light on the extent to which you were willing to go to grant a Rs. 81,000 Crore retrospective tax concession to Reliance. A copy of the conversation is annexed as Annexure D. Though the contents of the conversation have not been denied by anyone, it has been further corroborated by Arun Shourie who has pointed out that he was replaced as the main speaker on behalf of the BJP to ensure that the party would not oppose the retrospective tax concession to Reliance (just as was being planned by N.K. Singh in his conversation with Nira Radia).

A person aspiring to be the President of India should be above Board. You would agree that a person facing so many serious charges would bring disrepute to the position of President if he were not absolved of all these charges before being appointed on that post. Therefore, we demand independent investigations into all these charges before you are considered for this position. Yours Faithfully,

(Shanti Bhushan)

(Arvind Kejriwal)

(Prashant Bhushan)

(Dr. Kiran Bedi)

(Dr. Kumar Vishwas)

(Manish Sisodia)

(Chandramohan)

Annexure A It has been stated by you that the emails published in the newsmagazine Outlook on the basis of which the PIL was filed were forged. However, a recorded conversation between the newsmagazines correspondent and one of the key accused in the Naval War Room Leak , Ravi Shankaran, who clearly states that he was aware of the emails and receiving them as blind copies. Excerpts from the conversation: ..Ok. If you have all the e-mails with you. Ok. Then you will see there is someone called the big man himself. Nandas name is mentioned on all these emails. There is big rivalry going on. Between Nanda who is or was Thales agent and people trying to take over as the new agent. ..No No. Every email has Nandas name mention. Someone has erased it and edited those emails and given it to you. ..Listen. Blind copies are made to me. Ok. Secondly, the onlysmallest mistake I have made in my life was to .bloody sit and receive emails on BCC which did not concern me. I should have said please dont send me any emails. ..I wish I had never given my personal email to anybody including that idiot Rana. If you notice the whole story has taken a twist and the same Mr. JPP has gone down and visited Abhisek Verma that means he has ignored somebody when he came to India. All these copies are saying that please bloody pay me commission. I know that he was involved in the Scorpene. I know Arun Kumar who was the bloody director of submarines. He was the bloody guy who did everything work for Nanda. Abhishek Verma must have been trying to cut into the deal There is one e-mail dated 31st May 2005 sent by Ms. Berger to Abhisek Verma inviting him along with Kulbhushan Parashar and Shankaran, on behalf of Thlaes, for Paris Airshow 2005. In the suit of defamation filed by the Thales has stated; However, the said Ms. Berger had recommended some persons for issuance of invitations by the Plaintiff for Paris Airshow 2005. The Plaintiff had

extended 12500 invitations for the said Show and merely because the Plaintiff at the instance of the said Ms. Berger had issued the invitation to somebody can by no stretch of imagination be said to link the Plaintiff to the said persons. Thus, Thales admits that at the request of Ms. Gwendolyn Berger it invited Abhishek Verma, Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran for French Air show and thus it is also proved that the e-mail dated 31st May 2005 is not a forged one. The fact that Sh. Abhishek Verma along with Mr. Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankar were involved in the abovementioned deal has also been corroborated by their various telephone calls recorded by the investigating agencies. For example, (i) There is telephone record of Ravi Shankaran calling Admiral Prakash on the latters personal telephone number (23792905) at 8.43 pm on May 24, 2005. Within minutes of this call, Shankaran called Verma on his cell phone. (ii) In fact, there are series of calls between Shankaran (22880098) and Verma (9811432277) from November 2004 right through to July 2005. (iii) The investigating agency in its investigation has found that regular calls were made from Abhisheks cell phone (No.981143227) to Gwendolyn Berger in Paris (Cell Number 003 (6) 16 65 07 43, Landline 0033 (1) 47 04 34 33). (At page no.114-120) For instance, there are calls from Verma to Berger on July 6, 2005, at 12.51 am and again to her landline at 4.28 pm. (iv) There are many calls to Berger from both Vermas cell phone as well as Shankarans Mumbai number (22880098). Abhishek Verma was invited by the French Ambassador to India to attend a reception to be held on 2nd February 2006 to celebrate India-France defence cooperation in the wake of the coming into effect of the Scorpene submarine contract. The CBI had filed two charge-sheets dated 3rd July 2006 and 19.10.2006 in respect of Navy War Room Leak Case. Even though no investigation regarding Scorpene deal has been done by the CBI, the facts which have

emerged from the said charge-sheets of the CBI corroborate many of the allegations made regarding scorpene deal. As per the second charge sheet, Abhsihek Verma was associated with Atlas Group of companies, which deal in defence supplies and whose main source of income is through foreign remittances. It says that he received pecuniary benefits from the foreign companies having interest in various defence procurements. It has been clearly established that Ravi Shankaran, Kulbhushan Parahsar and Abhisek Verma were very close to each other and all of them were associated with Atlas group of companies which deal in defence supplies. It has been established by both the chargesheets that Abhishek Verma, Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran were three civilian beneficiaries of War room Leak. Para 46 of the first charge-sheet says, That using Pen Drives, the accused officers viz. S. L. Surve (A-3) and Vijender Rana (A-4), during the impugned period, copied large amounts of critical information related to national security and passed it on to Kulbhushan Parashar (A-1) and Ravi Shankaran (A-2).. In the final finding of the second Chargesheet, it is stated; Abhishek Verma is very closely associated with Kulbhushan Parashar, who provided at least 8 Pen Drives to the compromised defence officers to copy and trade off sensitive information of interest to the group in exchange of gratification. The second Chargesheet further states; Abhishek Verma is very closely associated with Ravi Shankaran, who has received such critical information on national security from the compromised defence officers namely Vijender Rana, through the Jet Flash Pen Drive and e-mails, and who was also in touch with foreign companies. One of the most revealing finding in the second charge-sheet is the business connection of M/s Atlas Defence Systems with Thales Group of companies. The charge sheet says;

14.5 That another PDF document recovered from this Jet Flash Pen Drive is a part of commercial proposal of M/s Thales Communications with respect to the Aerostat project, which is a part related to unmanned aerial surveillance by using tethered ballon mounted with surveillance equipments used mainly in border areas for keeping a watch on the activities of enemy countries. This Jet Flash pen drive also contains scanned copy of letter no. ADRDE/BEG/GEM dated November 2004 of Shri K.K. Thaper, Scientist F of Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE) addressed to M/s Atlas Defence Systems, 407, Tower-B, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon regarding the subject of Aerostat Presentation. It is proved that Kulbhushan Parashar was the contact person with regard to Aerostat presentation made by M/s Atlas Defence Systems. . Further, the second Charge sheet also proves that Abhishek Verma has connection with Ms. Gwendolyn Berger. It appears from the 1st charge-sheet that much of the evidence was destroyed because of delay in ordering an investigation. This is apparent from following findings of the CBI 46Investigation has shown that of the above 8 Pen Drives purchased by Kulbhushan Parashar (A-1), only 3 were recovered. .It has been proved that one pen drive (Scandisk) has been tampered with and the data residing herein has been completely wiped out, 65. That evidence has come on record that Kulbhushan Parahsar (A-1) consciously destroyed his computer hard disk and the scanner to destroy evidence In para 70 of the charge-sheet it has been stated, Evidence has come on record that Kulbhushan Parhashar (A-1) was knows as Kuls It would be relevant here to mention that in one of the emails, Kulbhushan Parahsar has been referred to as Kuls.

 The e-mails prima facie prove the involvement of Abhishek Verma as the middleman in the above said deal. They also show that he claimed to be dealing on behalf of the Congress party. It also came out from the message that amount of the commission involved in the entire deal was 4% of the total amount. In one of these e-mails sent by Sh. Abhishek Verma to Margaux Hemingway, probably a pseudo name, on 24th May 2005, Abhishek Verma has been found saying that Jean-Paul Perrier (JPP), Chairman and President of Thales International, should be conveyed that ..AP is going to Bombay to launch a stealth warship on 26th. He will also be inspecting the MDL Yard along with MDL Chairman Mr. Bhatia during his visit to BombayS has generally pushed his uncle to make a public statement to the press that day that country really needs submarines as the old fleet is depleting and India will not be ready if we do not replace the fleet immediately.His uncle has today, written a note to RM on the official file which is a very mild note that Rs.1000 crores (US $ 250 million) is really nothing compared to national security and we should not delay acquisition of submarines and inclusion of Germans in the present bid is legally not possible as per CVC guidelines. It appears that the word AP in the abovementioned message has been used for the Naval Chief, Admiral Arun Prakash who had in fact gone to Mumbai on 26th May 2005 to launch the stealth warship and also made the statement about the requirement of submarines a fact which can be corroborated from the newspaper report dated 27.05.2005 published in the Times of India. In another e-mail, Abhishek Verma appears to be answering a question posed to him Question 1.He would like to discuss that with the person delegated by the Gov, for example he said the Treasurer of Congress or somebody else. Because the 4% are impossible. The person to negotiate with after meeting with the above two people is me. I hope Thales does not think the Congress Party has a shop and they are negotiating with them. All negotiations would

be done by me. How much does Thales have in mind to spend on this project? In another message dated 28th May 2005, Abhishek Verma has been found saying Please convey to JPP that as committed by us three days back as per point No.3 below, we ensured what we have promised. The CNS yesterday gave that statement to the press as we wanted. This is a part of being a part of our strategy to build pressure on the government from Navys side. It appears that the word JPP in the mail has been used for Jean Paul Perrier, the President of M/s Thales, France. It is in this series of conversations, Abhishek Verma on 29th May 2005, in his email, stated With regard to an official appointment with RM (apparently Raksha Mantri, Pranab Mukerjee) for JPP, GK wants instructions from BB once again that he should send a fax and proceed with calling RMs office. So please ask JPP to instruct BB, who will instruct GK. BB said to GK that even after meeting with RM, Thales would want an assurance directly from the Lady. To this I told GK that this is either some bull shit concocted by BB himself to justify his salary or Thales are fools to think that this can happen. If they want their work done and it will be done. After meeting with RM and the Party treasurer, what more assurance can they get? They will see their file moving and cleared by the CCS committee very soon. They are not paying us before so what are they worried about? On Wednesday when you meet JPP for dinner please ask him: 1) How much exactly in terms of percentage should be the figure as now every one is asking for these details? 2) Does this figure only apply to Thales portion or also to the portion of Aramis, DCN and Izar? 3) Does this figure also include weapons systems figure or that is not included in the figure? 4) How do they intend dealing with Nanda at that stage? In his next message, Verma was found saying that he was negotiating on behalf of the Congress party and it also came out from the message that amount of the commission involved in the entire deal was 4% of the total amount. To quote from the message

Question 1.He would like to discuss that with the person delegated by the government, e.g. he said the Treasurer of Congress or somebody else. Because the 4% are impossible. The person to negotiate with after meeting with the above two people is me. I hope Thales does not think the Congress Party has a shop and they are negotiating with them. All negotiations would be done by me. How much does Thales have in mind to spend on this project? One of the most clinching evidences showing payment of commission is e-mail dated 13th July 2005 from the President of Thales, Jean-Paul Perrier to Abhishek Verma and also to one Ms. Gwendolyn Berger confirming the arrangement for payment of commission in the Scorpene deal. It appears, Ms. Gwendolyn Berger is International Liaison Officer for Thales as apparent from her business card. To quote from e-mail dated 13.07.2005 Dear Abhishek, Greetings on the day of Bastile Day. We confirm the arrangement for payment of 4% of the Scorpene contract price to your nominees. Please ask your Trustee lawyers to be in touch with us to draw up the paper work. We trust all is in order. Regards. Jean-Paul Perrier. In paragraph 8 of the letter it is stated that the case was sent to the CAG for auditing. However some crucial details have been deliberately left out: After the expose of the deal by the newsmagazine, the Ministry of Defence had sent out a detailed rejoinder claiming that the UPA government had saved Rs 313 crore by renegotiating the deal. They claimed that the price decided earlier by the NDA government in 2002 was too high and the UPA had managed to save Rs 313 crore a fact that was also stated by Shri Mukherjee in his statement to Parliament in March 2006.

 However, the fact is that according to the CAGs findings, the cost of the Scorpene deal was escalated by Rs 2,800 crore. This raises huge doubts about the claims that the UPA government reduced the price of the deal by Rs 313 crore. All these development raise serious suspicion about your role in the entire Navy War Room case, which needs to be investigated by an independent agency other than CBI. Your main emphasis is that the CBI has already done a preliminary inquiry and has not found anything amiss. The dishonesty of the CBI investigation is evident from the fact that while denying their investigation report to the Centre for PIL, they were routinely in touch with Abhishek Verma and giving him all information about their dishonest investigation. In fact the CBI did not even bother to investigate Vermas role as a defence middleman even after his partner Edmonds Allen sent a mountain of evidence to the CBI about his operating as a defence agent. They have reluctantly been forced to begin this investigation only after the IAC held a press conference recently and released the documents publicly. The CBI has now been forced to arrest him. That is why an independent SIT is required.

Annexure C

Allegations of illegitimate interference by Ms Omita Paul

There are some serious allegations relating to the doings of Ms Omita Paul. Ms Omita Paul appointment as advisor with the rank of secretary with a tenure that was concurrent with the tenure of Mr. Pranab Mukherjee in different ministries meant that she was both de facto and de jure the number two person in the Ministry. This fact can be ascertained from the various secretaries that worked with or under her and also by the noting in the file where her word prevailed. These senior secretaries had to suffer on account of her appointment as she was not only junior to them but less knowledgeable or competent.

She was neither elected by the people nor selected to the IAS cadre by the UPSC and yet she came to occupy the second most important position in three key ministries of the cabinet. No known guidelines or law was followed in her appointment which was arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. In fact the provisions relating to equality in the Constitution were given a go by.

It will not be wrong to describe her appointment as illegal.

It is for this reason that the information relating to provisions of law under which she was repeatedly appointed and the file with noting on her appointment has not been revealed under RTI.

The track record of the functioning of Omita Paul shows that she has misused her exalted position in the Finance ministry for blatant nepotism, for depriving extensions of tenure to senior officers only because they were honest and competent appointing a corrupt person to the sensitive post of chief of the capital market and lastly influencing the decision making process to companies involved in securities fraud.

Does she act on her own behalf or on behalf of Mr Mukherjee? Is she a lobby centre for corrupt corporation? Or is she a buffer to take the heat off any scandal/wrong doing? And what is the reason for Mr Mukherjee helpless when blatant act of her nepotism and corruption are reported in the press?

Whatever be the reason, the constructive responsibility is that of the Minister himself!

First the obvious question: What is the reason for the appointment of Ms Paul in the number two position in the three key Ministries that Mr Mukherjee has been a Minister

Ms Paul has been continuously appointed as an advisor with the rank of secretary in the three key Ministries Foreign, Defense and Finance- which has been co terminus with the tenure of Mr Mukherjee. Her appointment as Advisor in three different ministries is without precedent in Independent India and it is difficult to believe that she has specialized knowledge in three different areas to merit such appointment.

All attempts to get information on the law/guidelines under which she was appointed and the papers on her appointment under the RTI have been in vain.

It is an arbitrary appointment for arbitrary goals. Even the secretary of the Ministry is subordinate to her!

Though there have been extra constitutional authorities and power centres in the past an official power centre like that of Ms Paul the country has not known.

It may be mentioned that Ms Paul was also appointed as Information Commission at the time of election between UPA I and UPA II and that the then leader of opposition Shri Advani and the Prime Minister in May 2009 found time to select her as Information Commissioner for five years. The post of Information Commissioner was an insurance cover in case the Congress lost the election. She worked for eight days and disposed a total of 58 cases before re-joining as Advisor cum secretary in the Ministry of Finance once UPA came back to power.

That Ms Paul acts as an independent power centre, and works for the benefit of herself, her family members and the corporate lobby and in the process compromised national interest is obvious from the incident relating to appointment of SEBI chief.

She manipulated the entire system in order to have her candidate, a corrupt person Mr U K Sinha appointed to the post of Chairman of SEBI so that he

would favour companies like Reliance and Sahara. It would also enable her to have her brother appointed to the post vacated by Sinha having emoluments of four crores. Even when her brother did not have the basic qualification to be appointed to the post..

But first her role in removing honest officials from SEBI to install Mr Sinha:

The decision to give extension to the existing Chairman and members of SEBI by the secretary and the Minister ( approved on 19/10/09)was canceled on her behest ( 21 and 22/12/09), the existing members were never considered later for extension (10/8/10), she changed the composition of the committee to select the Chairman, had her own experts nominated to the Committee (25/8/10), ensured that the candidature Mr U K Sinha is by the so called search route. The search route was taken to conceal the illegal emoluments of Rs 4 crores drawn by Mr Sinha in a PSE which would have disqualified him for the post on grounds of integrity. It would also enable her to push the candidature of her brother who could enjoy the lavish salary without others knowing the real reason for pushing his candidature

After having Mr Sinha selected as Chairman Ms Paul ensured that the even the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet does not come to know the emoluments of Sinha while confirming his appointment. .( Refer confidential letter DO no 2/23/2007-RE dated 13/12/2010 of Dr Thomas Mathew, to Est Officer Annexure -1 item 4 (ii) Scale of pay : Not available)

It is obvious that the concealment of Mr Sinhas emoluments was deliberate and designed to mislead the selection committee and the ACC to presume that he was being paid the maximum pay payable to a PSU chief of Rs 1.25 lacs/pm.

Mr Sinhas emolument were over Rs four crores per annum(( 3.62 crores for 10.5 months as per balance sheet of UTI AMC) which is not possible in a public sector organization like UTI AMC. The Establishment Officer vide his order dated 4/1/08 had stated that the deputation was covered under Rule 6 (1) and not 6 (2) (ii) of IAS Cadre Rules!

Mr Sinha got his emoluments increased after the decision of the Establishment Officer with retrospective effect to Dec 2006 and earned over 10.5 crores.

The purpose of appointing a corrupt and manipulative person to the sensitive post of SEBI chairman was to settle issues of thousands of crores in favour of the concerned companied which had lobbied with her.

The allegation of Ms Paul acting on behalf of the corrupt corporate is borne by the fact that Dr Abraham as a WTM had leveled allegation in a letter dated 1/6/2011 written to the Prime Minister that Mr Sinha tried to influence him on four cases. One of the case related to securities fraud of Reliance group, and others related to Tayals of Bank of Rajasthan, Sahara, and MCX.. While trying to influence him Mr Sinha had stated that these were engaging the attention of Union Minister for Finance, or Mrs Omita Paul, Advisor to the Finance Minister,.

The denial of extension to the then Chairman and members of SEBI by Mrs Paul, the fact the extension was stopped when SEBI recommended action against the Reliance group to the Finance Ministry on a eight year complaint by Mr Gurumurthy involving over 25,000 crores of benefit to the promoters, the extraordinary interest taken by Ms Paul in having a corrupt person like Mr Sinha appointed as SEBI chairman by suppressing his illegal salary from the selection committee and the Appointment Committee, and the subsequent action of Mr Sinha all show that Ms Paul was involved in harming national interest by promoting corporate interest of the respective companies.

Sahara was a company taking deposits from small un-bankable people. From 2008 onwards during the tenure of Mr Mukherjee it violated the deposit norms under section 58 A of Companies which allowed to collect unsecured deposits from debentures for 10% of its own fund. By that it could have collected only Rs 230 crores but went on to collect over Rs 20,000 crores. Almost the entire money collected was siphoned out and virtually there were negligible assets in the company in whose name deposits were taken so that the group could not be compelled to refund the amount. It was the largest ponzi scheme involving 2 crore poor people.

Dr Abraham had passed orders in the company which was contested by Sahara in the High Court. But by a freak chance the matter came before him for adjudication because the CJI referred the matter to SEBI. He adjudicated the matter at the fag end of the tenure (23/6/11) directing the group to refund the entire money to the investors. His order was upheld by the Tribunal and

is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court also. The order of Dr Abraham is proof of his competency and honesty, while the shenanigans of Mr Sinha at UTI AMC is proof of his cleverness and manipulative skills.

The second case that interested Ms Paul was the securities fraud of 513 crores of Reliance group ( Mukesh Ambani group) .Reliance Petroleum shares were short sold for Rs 290 and later covered when the shares were sold in the cash segment and the prices fell. The reliance group made 513 crores in five days. The securities fraud occurred in Nov 2007

The penalty is three times and the total amount involved is 2000 crores.

Reliance tried to settle the matter by paying a fine of only Rs two crores and then eight crores through consent order. It was not even willing to pay back the fraud amount of Rs 513 crores. This was not acceptable to the then officers of SEBI..

Mr Sinha has changed the circular on the consent order (25/5/2012) in a manner to favour Reliance group and continue the settlement of the criminal offence through a consent order. This is in sharp contrast with the case of Rajat Gupta whose offence was much less but then he did not a Omita Paul or U K Sinha to bail him out.

The third case related to the Tayals of Bank of Rajasthan in whose favour the outgoing member Prashant Saran passed a favourable order so that he could be re appointed. That the order only showed that the allegation of Dr Abraham were true. Similar conclusion were made by the media

Kindly refer links in Financial Express and Mint on Mr Sarans order http://www.financialexpress.com/news/what-is-sebi-thinking/929811/ http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/02202250/Sebi8217s-arguments-inTaya.html

The fourth case related to MCX which wanted to open a parallel stock exchange. The Ministry ensured that Dr Bimal Jalan Committee report is taken up by SEBI after Sinha became the chairman so that the portion relating on listing of the stock exchange company is rejected. This would help in giving market value to the MCX license. Further the terms of opening the exchange too has been diluted.

Other related scandals On the slot vacated by by Sinha at UTI AMC, Ms Paul wanted her brother to be appointed and though the four financial institution under her were agreeable the foreign shareholder was not . As a result the post of the CMD remained vacant for fifteen months because Ms Paul wanted to have her brother appointed. Geat harm to public interest was done because UTI has around 60,000 crores invested in the financial market and large part of the money comes from government sources.

It was only when the candidature of the Mr Mukherjee was considered for the post of President of India seriously, the brother of Ms Paul withdrew from the race of the post of CMD of UTI AMC The advertisement released subsequently for the post thereafter shows that neither Ms Pauls brother nor

Mr Sinha had the qualification because it states that the person should be a a seasoned financial service professional with minimum 20 years experience. They are neither financial service professional nor have a days experience. In fact the advertisement released, for the first time honours the commitment given to the government to the JPC II on securities scam that a professional would be appointed through a advertisement.

Mr Sinha had increased his emolument through a rubber stamp Board on the grounds of industry parity conveniently forgetting that he was appointed to an executive post and industry parity is given to non executive posts like pilots etc. His deputation was covered under Rule 6(1) of the cadre rules and the maximum he could draw was Rs 1.25 lacs per month. It was for this reason he appealed to the High Court against the order of the Information Commission that UTI AMC is covered under the RTI Act. Both Ms Sinha and Ms Paul wanted the illegal emoluments to be a secret for their respective reasons.

The other act of nepotism involved Ms Omita Pauls husband who was favoured by an unprecedented amendment in the IT Act. The following exemption granted in the year 2011 was notified for being applied retrospectively from the year 2007-08 to cover the entire tenure of Mr Paul in the UPSC Section 10 (45) of the Income Tax Act was introduced in 2011 to state: (45) any allowance or perquisite, as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette in this behalf, paid to the Chairman or a retired Chairman or any other member or retired member of the Union Public Service Commission.

Retrospective amendment to undo a judgment or wrong has been known but never to pass on a benefit like the one above. The amendment was sought to be justified on the basis of sixth pay commission report but there no such recommendation in the report. The fact is that Ms Paul out of sheer vindictiveness used her influence to initiate disciplinary proceedings of major penalty against an honest officer like Mr Abraham who exposed her corruption and refused to compromise. His order against Sahara is in sharp contrast to the manipulations of Ms Paul and Sinha. There is sufficient material to charge her for offences committed by her under PCA and IPC. Answers are needed on whether all these actions of Ms Paul narrated was within the knowledge of Mr Mukherjee? Some of them were also covered in the press! He gave official approval whenever the same was required. If so then what did he do restrain her and protect the public interest? Or was he helpless to act?

Ms Paul is the responsibility as the latest extension given to her on 15/6/2012 states that her tenure coterminous with the tenure of Shri Pranab Mukherjee as Finance Minister.

Her next assignment is the post of Secretary to the President of India!

Annexure D
July 09, 2009 09:31:49 Niira Radia: Hi N.K. Singh: Hi Niira Niira Radia: I just wanted to tell you that I still think HT is a little compromised. We met up with both the editors Sanjoy Narayan [of HT] and Subu Kumar [Possibly she means the editor of Mint, R. Sukumar] Subu Kumar is okay of Mint. But Sanjay Narayan yesterday... Manoj was in town. If you know Manoj Modi was here. And the sense I got from the conversations and that I see the type of stories they are still carrying You know they are still carrying that Govt is not a respondent in this matter when the Govt is clearly a respondent. Because the other side has circulated, a part of our SLP [Special Leave Petition] by crossing out the govt is a respondent part by inking it with white ink... N.K. Singh: Ah, oh Niira Radia: ... and showing it only as an intervener. N.K. Singh: Uh, hun Niira Radia: ... And of course the only paper that believes it is Hindustan Times at the end of the day N.K. Singh: I saw that piece. And of course its likely mixed up with the fact of Anil having met all these guys. So I think its not very clear. I mean that story has been masked [or morphed?] as if to say that this is: a) A fact on the court thing and b) Mixed up with Anils meeting with these guys. Niira Radia: Correct. But the thing that what they tried to do was to tell everyone. And they called everyone that govt is not an intervener, sorry, not a respondent and N.K. Singh: Correct No what I mean is whether govt is an intervener or not, I mean the only person who is to decide this is: a) The govt and b) The court. Niira Radia: Correct N.K. Singh: And if the court decides that I'm not entertaining you as an intervener. (Inaudible) thats the end of the story but it the court sort of pleads the govt as an intervener, so be it. These are not matters: a) whether govt wants to be an interferer or not is it the govts choice. Second, whether it is entertained or not is the courts decision. Right? Niira Radia: Yeah but point I am making is that everybody else took no notice of it, but except only Hindustan Times. N.K. Singh: Achaa I'm meeting Shobhna [Bhartiya, head of HT group,

presumably] in an hours time and I'm going to speak to her about this Niira Radia: Yeah, we were on this discussion yesterday with Manoj Modi, we met up Sanjay and we took them through everything. We are hoping that they have understood everything but I thought the body language was a bit you know still you can see that they are a bit and when we asked what do you think we should have done? Manoj said that to them (Sanjoy Narayan and R.Sukumar, presumably), and their reaction was that the two brothers should merge again. N.K. Singh: Their two brothers? Niira Radia: Should merge (Laughs) N.K. Singh: Oh not bad yaar Niira Radia: Laughs N.K. Singh: Real good actually. Very good philanthropic advice Niira Radia: Laughs N.K. Singh: No right now I'm in another fire fighting. Because I was likely shut my mind from this. Because I'm in the immediate issue of what is going to happen to Pranab Mukherjee's announcement on the tax benefit to them on the gas [full deduction under Income Tax Act for business of laying and operating cross country natural gas or crude or petroleum oil pipeline network for distribution on common carrier principle]. Given that he has withdrawn it, in a way, because he has made it applicable only for only for NLEP VIII [actually NELPNational Exploration and Licensing policyVIII is eighth round]. Right. No, this is revenue secretary doing some degree of championship there. Niira Radia: Right N.K. Singh: So working out a strategy. How to get this back? One of the complications is that between you and me, Mr Arun Shourie has gone and got himself completely on the other side. Niira Radia: Yes N.K. Singh: Because he has been promised a Rajya Sabha (seat) by Tony [Jesudasan, Anil Ambani camp's lobbyist] and co. and I yesterday checked, yes, Samajwadi has 50% surplus votes in UP which combined with surplus votes of BJP can give the BJP an extra ticket and why should therefore BJP deny itself from getting an additional Rajya Sabha on someone elses strength? But thats

the promise given and therefore he was very, very, very critical of this whole gas thing and said in the BJP parliamentary board meeting, day before yesterday. Now whatever he said in that meeting, day before yesterday, is one aspect. But what attitude BJP will take on this whole issue of the debate on the finance bill, which is beginning from Monday, in both house of Parliament is of vital importance. Because if large number of opposition MPs and Samajwadi will definitely join in begin to say that Pranab Mukerjee has given a bad largesse it will benefit only one company then a) Pranab Mukherjee is in the defensive and therefore the question of extending it to huh retrospectively goes out of the window. So this whole managing that stuff in a way and also I think, you know, Arun is speaking, Shourie is speaking as a listed speaker in the Rajya Sabha for the BJP but fortunately what we have managed to do is make him the second speaker but made Venkaiah [Naidu] the first. So I dont know what is Mukeshs relations with Venkaiah. Niira Radia: (inaudible) had good relations with him. N.K. Singh: Pardon? Niira Radia: I thought PMS Prasad [Director in Reliance] had good relationship with Venkaiah. N.K. Singh: He has? Niira Radia: I thought so N.K. Singh: Then I'm going to get you [him?] flown today to talk to Venkaiah because if he is the first speaker then he already takes a party line then itll be very difficult for Shourie in his second intervention to take a different line. Niira Radia: Hmm N.K. Singh: Then we have to orchestrate who will speak. This is an immediate problem right now. Because frankly if this tax thing doesnt go through then thats a major initiative that fails to materialize because he has, Anil has also organized this: a) He tried to controversialise it b) He got the department to make it prospective and not retrospective. Whereas, really, all the roadshows that were done on the national exploration policy was on the explicit condition and understanding of this seven years tax break. So over looking all the understanding and ignoring everything and spreading disinformation that seems to have gathered momentum in the last 64 hours. Thats their hottest issue right now. Where we attack this and I take note of what you tell me about HT. Huh? Niira Radia: No, no problem I knew that was an issue cause all these queries were coming in. It was pretty bad in terms of They kept on saying that were

going to earn 81,000 crores of benefit out of that you know and that he could have given it to us retrospectively and all that. Thats the sort of queries that theyve put out in the media. N.K. Singh: Yeah thats right. Niira Radia: We killed most of that. None of that has appeared. So just checking whether N.K. Singh: No, I dont want this to come up in features in Parliament. Because thats the most immediate thing that influences government mind. Because those guys, Like PM and FM are sitting there and several MPs beginning to talk all this. That influences them in a very immediate sense of the term. Not everybody agrees whats written in so many papers and journals. Whatever is spoken there is directly heard by these guys. Niira Radia: Correct. Correct. And the FM's view you on this? N.K. Singh: I think having done what he did, he is now unable to undo the damage which has been given the interpretation. So the request made by the petroleum ministry for them to reconsider has been routinely turned down by the revenue secretary. You see? So in effect, if that happens, and the revenue secretary... [seems to be a jump] we will benefit out of this. Because then it becomes completely from the eighth round. And that means not here or there. Where as all roadshows that were done, this was one of the conditions on which the investment came in. Niira Radia: Correct Somebody will have to point out that this was an assurance given in promoting the investment basket and this opportunity you cannot retrospectively curtail an opportunity. Instead of giving a largesse, this is only sticking to a commitment given earlier. This is the point of view which has to(audio ends abruptly)

Arun Shourie confirms Nira Radia tapes leak

Karan Thapar , CNN-IBN New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Telecom Minister Arun Shourie claimed that senior party leader Venkaiah Naidu was lobbied, to ensure the BJP wouldn't oppose 2009 Budget proposals that allegedly favoured billionaire businessman and Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani. Shourie confirmed Nira Radia tape revelation to Karan Thapar on 'Devil's Advocate' on CNN-IBN This is the first concrete proof that Nira Radia's influence extended to the Opposition ranks as well. Here's a brief transcript: Karan Thapar: Let's start with the Nira Radia tapes, you yourself are a subject of discussion. The voice speaking to Nira Radia reveals that he has arranged for you to be replaced by Venkaiah Naidu as the lead speaker from the BJP side in the Rajya Sabha on the 2009 Budget. Let me first ask you did this actually happen? Arun Shourie: Yes, there is no doubt in that. I was asked to open the debate on the budget, I worked for one week to speak of the matter and at the last minute after I reached the house I was told that the previous night Mr Venkaiah Naidu had decided to speak suddenly. Therefore as he had been party president he will speak first. My turn would come after all the 13-14 speakers have spoken and then I would be the second speaker for the party. Karan Thapar: Now the second thing that the tape suggests that if you would have been the lead speaker you might have taken a hard position on a proposal in the budget which was going to help Mukesh Ambanihugely. But by replacing you with Mr Venkaiah Naidu the person had ensured that the line taken by the BJP would be more accommodating and understanding? Arun Shourie: Yes, it was certainly their objective, I mean its clear from the tapes that was the objective. They may have apprehended this because I had spoken about that particular proposal in an adverse way in a party meeting...I may or may not have spoken about this on the floor of the house. Karan Thapar: But this was their fear? Arun Shourie: This was their fear. Karan Thapar: Now the voice speaking on the tape speaking to Nira Radia, who I have been referring to all along hasn't been identified. Have you recognised that voice? Arun Shourie: No doubt everybody who listens to the tape and I hope that everyone listens to the tape will know that it is my good college friend NK Singh. What is the problem with that? Karan Thapar: The gentleman who was secretary to the Mr Vajpayee at one point of time? Arun Shourie: He was secretary to the Prime Minister, he was I am sure finance secretary at one stage, he was a member of the Planning Commission and my college friend.