rediff.com Special: The hawala case, reopened

HOME | NEWS | SPECIALS

The Rediff Special/ Irfan Aziz

On July 13, the Delhi high court directed the income tax department to present before the court all the facts and documents pertaining to the multi-billion rupee hawala racket of the early 1990s, in which 115 top Indian politicians and bureaucrats were implicated for accepting payments from the Jain brothers.
Ministers implicated
Huge amounts of cash was allegedly sent to some politicians and bureaucrats through hawala channels by one Mohammad Amiruddin Habeeb, alias Amirbhai, a resident of Bombay and Madras, as per police records. Chief Justice R J Pasayat and Justice D K Jain heard a Public Interest Litigation posted by Jansatta correspondent Om Prakash Tapas.
The petitioner claimed the hawala accused, including four current Union ministers led by Home Minister L K Advani, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, Civil Aviation Minister Sharad Yadav and Minister of State for External Affairs Ajit Kumar Panja, had given statements to the income tax department under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act regarding their material assets in which they had admitted to possessing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.
According to the petitioner, two income tax officers -- D C Agarwal and Y K Batra -- had recorded these statements and had prepared a report which proved that the ministers possessed ill-gotten wealth. The petitioner sought to reopen the hawala case on that basis.
Some time ago, Chief Vigilance Commissioner N Vittal had put out the names of several hawala accused on the basis of these income tax reports which had been lying sealed for some years. Vittal posted some of these names on the CVC web site. The list included the names of Panja and Yadav. The CVC did not admit directly to Advani and Sinha's names, but merely said he chose to post the names of only those who had admitted to disproportionate assets beyond Rs 10 lakh.
Insufficient evidence
The hawala case broke out in the early 1990s, but remained under wraps till another former Jansatta reporter Vineet Narain went to the Supreme Court with another PIL and sought the apex court's direct intervention in the matter. Whereupon then Chief Justice J S Verma personally monitored the case and directed three agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation, which was already investigating the case, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities to conduct separate investigations into the case.
The CBI went in for a prolonged legal battle, but lost all the cases because there was a dispute within the organisation on whether the amounts mentioned in the Jain diaries were all or whether more payments were made. Finally, the Delhi high court discharged Advani, maintaining that the diaries did not constitute sufficient evidence.
The ED had little role to play till it got hold of the main conduit through which money was allegedly being transferred to India to the Jains and then being handed over to the accused. A good portion of its case rested on presenting before the courts the man who, the ED claimed, had transferred all the cash. The CBI named him as Amirbhai, who was then based in Dubai.
Bail plea accepted
After ostensibly evading the CBI's attempts for nearly eight years, Amirbhai arrived voluntarily in India on January 8, by a Gulf Air flight from Dubai.
The customs have the names of fugitives listed on its computers. Under the drill, the moment details of a passport is fed into the computer, it automatically gives out a beep in case the passport holder is on a wanted list. As per the drill, the computer also gives out to the concerned customs official operating the system at that point of time, the names of the investigating agencies looking out for the concerned person as well as a list of officers on call from these agencies who have to be contacted immediately and informed about the arrival of the fugitive.
In Amirbhai's case, the customs officials noticed on the monitor that apart from other agencies, the man was on the Interpol list for alleged foreign exchange violations in 1995 and 1997. The customs immediately alerted the concerned CBI officials. But the CBI officers refused to heed the call and said Amirbhai was no longer on their wanted list.
The customs officials then turned to the ED, whose officials, after prolonged exchanges with the CBI officials, finally took Amirbhai into custody much after midnight.
The next morning, Amirbhai was presented before Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal who remanded him to judicial custody. Amirbhai's bail application had been put up before five different judges, but everywhere he failed to secure bail. Four months later, on May 16, Justice K Ramamoorthy of the Delhi high court granted him bail.
Throughout the time he was in judicial custody, neither the CBI nor the ED, which arrested him, cared to seek police remand or for that matter, even visit him in Tihar jail to ask him a few questions. This, when the man was alleged to be an international hawala racketeer with foreign exchange violations estimated at Rs 53 crore (Rs 530 million) and on the Interpol list.
After his release, the case was considered as good as closed, but for this petition to dig out the income tax records.
In 1997 Justice Jaspal Singh of the Delhi high court, the judge who had granted Advani anticipatory bail in the hawala case, dismissed Amirbhai's plea for anticipatory bail. The judge mentioned in his order that: 'He is also an accused in what is now known as the hawala case pertaining to First Information Report, FIR No. RC1(A)/95 ACU(VI) dated 4.3.1995.' According to Justice Singh, 'It all started during the investigation of two cases registered by the CBI, namely RC1(A) 95-ACU (vi) CBI and RC5(SI) 91-SIU(V)/SIC-II CBI.'
CBI changes stance
CBI officials today deny that they were ever looking for Amirbhai. But in August 1997, Justice Singh had said, 'How was Amirbhai transferring money to the Jains? This came to be answered during the investigations of RC No. 5(S)/91-SIU-V/SIC-II CBI.' The judge mentions the amount that, according to the CBI, Amirbhai transferred to India to distribute to Indian politicians. This amount, as stated by Justice Singh, was US $ 2, 26,50,000 which in 1997 amounted to Rs 48 crore (Rs 480 million). In today's context of dollar to rupee ratio, it is over Rs 100 crore (Rs 1 billion).
After the heat and dust over the alleged corruption of India's top brass, the case ended in a whimper with not a single accused being brought to justice.
Part II: A most bizarre case
The Rediff Specials
Tell us what you think of this feature

HOME | NEWS | MONEY | SPORTS | MOVIES | CHAT | INFOTECH | TRAVEL
SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS
AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION
HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK

	The Rediff Special/ Irfan Aziz On July 13, the Delhi high court directed the income tax department to present before the court all the facts and documents pertaining to the multi-billion rupee hawala racket of the early 1990s, in which 115 top Indian politicians and bureaucrats were implicated for accepting payments from the Jain brothers. Ministers implicated Huge amounts of cash was allegedly sent to some politicians and bureaucrats through hawala channels by one Mohammad Amiruddin Habeeb, alias Amirbhai, a resident of Bombay and Madras, as per police records. Chief Justice R J Pasayat and Justice D K Jain heard a Public Interest Litigation posted by Jansatta correspondent Om Prakash Tapas. The petitioner claimed the hawala accused, including four current Union ministers led by Home Minister L K Advani, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, Civil Aviation Minister Sharad Yadav and Minister of State for External Affairs Ajit Kumar Panja, had given statements to the income tax department under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act regarding their material assets in which they had admitted to possessing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. According to the petitioner, two income tax officers -- D C Agarwal and Y K Batra -- had recorded these statements and had prepared a report which proved that the ministers possessed ill-gotten wealth. The petitioner sought to reopen the hawala case on that basis. Some time ago, Chief Vigilance Commissioner N Vittal had put out the names of several hawala accused on the basis of these income tax reports which had been lying sealed for some years. Vittal posted some of these names on the CVC web site. The list included the names of Panja and Yadav. The CVC did not admit directly to Advani and Sinha's names, but merely said he chose to post the names of only those who had admitted to disproportionate assets beyond Rs 10 lakh. Insufficient evidence The hawala case broke out in the early 1990s, but remained under wraps till another former Jansatta reporter Vineet Narain went to the Supreme Court with another PIL and sought the apex court's direct intervention in the matter. Whereupon then Chief Justice J S Verma personally monitored the case and directed three agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation, which was already investigating the case, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities to conduct separate investigations into the case. The CBI went in for a prolonged legal battle, but lost all the cases because there was a dispute within the organisation on whether the amounts mentioned in the Jain diaries were all or whether more payments were made. Finally, the Delhi high court discharged Advani, maintaining that the diaries did not constitute sufficient evidence. The ED had little role to play till it got hold of the main conduit through which money was allegedly being transferred to India to the Jains and then being handed over to the accused. A good portion of its case rested on presenting before the courts the man who, the ED claimed, had transferred all the cash. The CBI named him as Amirbhai, who was then based in Dubai. Bail plea accepted After ostensibly evading the CBI's attempts for nearly eight years, Amirbhai arrived voluntarily in India on January 8, by a Gulf Air flight from Dubai. The customs have the names of fugitives listed on its computers. Under the drill, the moment details of a passport is fed into the computer, it automatically gives out a beep in case the passport holder is on a wanted list. As per the drill, the computer also gives out to the concerned customs official operating the system at that point of time, the names of the investigating agencies looking out for the concerned person as well as a list of officers on call from these agencies who have to be contacted immediately and informed about the arrival of the fugitive. In Amirbhai's case, the customs officials noticed on the monitor that apart from other agencies, the man was on the Interpol list for alleged foreign exchange violations in 1995 and 1997. The customs immediately alerted the concerned CBI officials. But the CBI officers refused to heed the call and said Amirbhai was no longer on their wanted list. The customs officials then turned to the ED, whose officials, after prolonged exchanges with the CBI officials, finally took Amirbhai into custody much after midnight. The next morning, Amirbhai was presented before Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal who remanded him to judicial custody. Amirbhai's bail application had been put up before five different judges, but everywhere he failed to secure bail. Four months later, on May 16, Justice K Ramamoorthy of the Delhi high court granted him bail. Throughout the time he was in judicial custody, neither the CBI nor the ED, which arrested him, cared to seek police remand or for that matter, even visit him in Tihar jail to ask him a few questions. This, when the man was alleged to be an international hawala racketeer with foreign exchange violations estimated at Rs 53 crore (Rs 530 million) and on the Interpol list. After his release, the case was considered as good as closed, but for this petition to dig out the income tax records. In 1997 Justice Jaspal Singh of the Delhi high court, the judge who had granted Advani anticipatory bail in the hawala case, dismissed Amirbhai's plea for anticipatory bail. The judge mentioned in his order that: 'He is also an accused in what is now known as the hawala case pertaining to First Information Report, FIR No. RC1(A)/95 ACU(VI) dated 4.3.1995.' According to Justice Singh, 'It all started during the investigation of two cases registered by the CBI, namely RC1(A) 95-ACU (vi) CBI and RC5(SI) 91-SIU(V)/SIC-II CBI.' CBI changes stance CBI officials today deny that they were ever looking for Amirbhai. But in August 1997, Justice Singh had said, 'How was Amirbhai transferring money to the Jains? This came to be answered during the investigations of RC No. 5(S)/91-SIU-V/SIC-II CBI.' The judge mentions the amount that, according to the CBI, Amirbhai transferred to India to distribute to Indian politicians. This amount, as stated by Justice Singh, was US $ 2, 26,50,000 which in 1997 amounted to Rs 48 crore (Rs 480 million). In today's context of dollar to rupee ratio, it is over Rs 100 crore (Rs 1 billion). After the heat and dust over the alleged corruption of India's top brass, the case ended in a whimper with not a single accused being brought to justice. Part II: A most bizarre case The Rediff Specials Tell us what you think of this feature
HOME \| NEWS \| MONEY \| SPORTS \| MOVIES \| CHAT \| INFOTECH \| TRAVEL SINGLES \| NEWSLINKS \| BOOK SHOP \| MUSIC SHOP \| GIFT SHOP \| HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL \| WEATHER \| MILLENNIUM \| BROADBAND \| E-CARDS \| EDUCATION HOMEPAGES \| FREE EMAIL \| CONTESTS \| FEEDBACK

The Rediff Special/ Irfan Aziz