Commission Direct Deposit Form Agency Name: Agent: Fill & Download for Free

Antonia is Sonia’s real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the Nazi army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia’s father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists’ properties including his.Second, she was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father’s connection with the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists, and her family’s continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwise meaningless lie.Third, Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond Primary School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections that she is qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK.The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. Her father was a mason and mother a share cropper..Paola Maino Antonia Sonia Gandhi MotherSonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her “education” which is enough English language to get domestic help jobs. But in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi willfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP].This is just a beginning. As this booklet unfolds Sonia’s story, it reveals shocking details on the corruption and fraud, disrespect for Indian laws, alarming threat to democracy of India, religious intolerance towards Hinduism, pro-terrorist policies, dividing country to perpetuate dynasty rule.Sonia lied from President of India to a common man. She lied to the President about the number of MPs supporting her and to a common man on a trivial issue such as her educational qualification. She says that she is outside Government but controls every move Government makes and there is no record of her ever admitting or apologizing for any lies and mistakes.Non- Violence.Sonia is violent and her violence spans Political, Spiritual and Physical spheres. The way she installed herself to become congress president, the way she treats congressmen and opponents speaks volumes in Political Sphere. Her crusade against Hinduism such as Rama Sethu (historic bridge built by Lord Ram, as per Hindu Holy Book, “Ramayana”) speaks of spiritual violence. In the Physical sphere, Sonia was sympathetic in Congress party and in Government to the killers of 3000 Sikhs, where innocent Sikhs on streets of New Delhi were lynched to death. Jagdish Tytler who was one of the instigators of the lynching was rewarded with a Government ministry. Central Government provided a weak defense in courts and no congressmen was ever punished for the anti-Sikh pogrom. Rajiv Gandhi whose wife is Sonia even justified the killings by saying “When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake”. She is pursuing pro-terrorist policies for vote banks that resulted in number of killings in last three years she was in power just next to Iraq.Opinion on Hinduism and Ram SetuSonia, in her opinion and according to the affidavit submitted in Supreme Court, Ram is a fictional character and Ramayana never happened. Under her rule ‘Rama Sethu’ is being blown up just like Taliban blew up Buddha Statues. Her protégé Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister have attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala Hills for building Churches and Tourism. This is akin to non-Christians taking over Vatican for building their worship places. Her reasons for not taking firm action against terrorism are two fold. One is the sense that investigation would hurt vote bank and another is that the overwhelming number of those who were killed in the terrorism are Hindus who are not from the vote bank. As recently as few weeks she visited Andhra Pradesh that witnessed the brutal terrorist attack that killed more than 50 people and she did not go visit the city where attack occurred (Hyderabad) because those affected are not her vote banks.Truth Alone Triumphs (Satyameva Jayathe)Sonia, under her rule ‘Satyameva jayathe’ has been replaced by a Christian cross used by Louis the Pious (778-840) on currency coins. indian two rupees coin,compare it with french coinchristian cross on coins of french denier_louis_le_pieuxForeign Missionaries & conversionMahatma Gandhi: Gandhi, had a clear foresight about missionaries. On numerous occasions he condemned missionary activity. He said “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing.” He further said “The effect of Christianity upon India in general…has been disastrous.” Regarding conversion Gandhi said “The idea of conversion, I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” He also said “Conversion is like a drop of poison which fouls the whole food” and that “poverty does not justify conversion”.Sonia is known for her sympathy and support to deceitful proselytization. Her party granted the high-security Air Force field to Benny Hinn to hold his healing charade that even Christian Trinity Foundation declared as a fraud. A leader of seventh day Adventist church, Ron Watts was ordered deportation by courts for his illegal activities. He seems to have been blessed by Sonia and continues to live in India. The state Governors she appointed have been consistently rejecting State laws to enact anti-conversion laws to prevent conversion of poor people by allurement.HYPOCRISY OF MOTHER & SONSONIA is a staunch roman catholic and she is be fooling the HINDU masses by putting tilak on forehead and by performing pooja in HINDU temples and bowing the head before pujari etc.She pretend to be Hindu,which she is not.We are quoting a report published on 24th march 2011,which is self explanatory.Indian envoy refers to Sonia as ‘Christian,’ reference is deletedFor the Congress, the subject of Sonia Gandhi’s religion is a touchy one and generally off-limits when it comes to official communications.Just how sensitive an issue it is was revealed last month when the official representative of the UPA Government in Washington, Ambassador Meera Shankar, delivered a speech at a US university referring to Sonia Gandhi being a Christian as a testament to India’s pluralism and diversity. However, that reference was later quickly deleted.In her keynote speech on the subject “Why India Matters” at Emory University on February 24, Shankar said: “India is a land of incredible diversity. Like the United States it celebrates pluralism. It not only tolerates diversity but has embraced it and has allowed people from all walks of life to flourish and realize their full potential. This is a tradition that is rooted in our civilization. Throughout our history peoples from other parts of the world have come to India and made it a home, resulting in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one where individual faith and belief is not only respected but adds to the overall sense of nationhood. Today the fact that we have a woman Head of State, a Sikh Head of Government and a Muslim Vice President and a Christian as the leader of the largest national political party is perhaps the best statement of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our state.”Sonia,according to the respected Swiss magazine (published in 1991), Schweitzer Illustrate, Rajiv Gandhi, her late husband had secret Swiss accounts worth $ 2 billion. Sonia is known for her close association with Italian fugitive Quattrocchi. Sonia and her family are believed to have looted country wealth worth billions of dollars.Secret unaccounted wealth in Swiss accountsSwiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte published an explosive story in its issue dated Nov. 11, 1991 which disclosed that fourteen rules or ex-rulers of the third world countries have a deposit of foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 5 lakh 50 thousand crores in Swiss banks. The magazine printed the names, photographs and the amount deposited by each of them. They included Idi Amin of Uganda, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, Jean Claude Duvalier of Haiti, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Seke Moboto of Zaire, Nicolai Chausescue of Rumania, Haile Selassie of Thiopia, Abu Nida of Palestine, Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan, Suharto of Indonesia, Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Jaa B. Bokassa of Zontralafrika, Rajiv Gandhi of India and Reza Pahlevi of Iran, in that order. The amount said to be deposited by Rajiv Gandhi in various Swiss Banks was 2 billion US dollars. Most of them, who figure in the list, are infamous for being corrupt, nationally and internationally. The magazine which published this story is supposed to be a very serious publicationCPI(M) MP Amal dutta raised the matter in parliament, and he did mention the name of Rajiv Gandhi and the amount, but nothing could go on record for there was pandemonium from treasury benches which happened to be occupied by the Congress at that time. There upon, Sunday Mail carried this story and reproduced the photographs and money mentioned under their names which in turn was published in the Hindi daily Amar Ujala, too. The point to note was that Congress Government neither confirmed the story nor denied it. No defamation suit was filed by any of the fourteen leaders or by their relatives. This speaks volume about the Rajiv-Sonia couple. India can get her money back, according to the Swiss laws, if prosecution proceedings are finally launched against the heirs of Rajiv GandhiTHE ROYAL SON IN LAW ROBERT VADRA DUKE OF MORADABAD IS EXEMPTED FROM PRE-EMBARKATION SECURITY CHECKS.THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ITALIAN QUEEN VICTORIAFeelings towards enemies/detractorsSonia is known for her vindictive nature. She is known not to spare even her party men and routinely humiliates them. She even humiliated the dead body by denying a respectful funeral, of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao who did not encourage Sonia’s political growth.Nationalism and confidence in IndiaSonia abandoned India during 1971 war and in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost elections she hid herself in Italian embassy. She did not even apply for Indian citizenship for 16 years though living in Prime Minister’s house.Moral principles vs. political GainsSonia,in 1997, Sonia pulled down United Front Government at centre because a political party DMK, a constituent of United Front Government was found to be close to her husband’s killers i.e., LTTE. Every election costs Indian tax payer billions of rupees. But in 2004, she joined hands with same DMK to gain power.Scams & Scandals.Sonia was almost and always in news due to some scandal or scam. Maruti Scam, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, Indian Artifacts smuggling, Bofors kickbacks, Indira/Rajiv Trusts and Indira Arts Center usurpation, political manipulations are some of the widely published notorious scandals she was involved in.Contribution towards IndiaSonia: Except for scandals, scams and intolerance primarily towards Hindu institutions, she has no positive contribution to lay claim to.QUEEN WITH KING,PRINCESS AND CROWN PRINCESonia –Rajiv’s relationship(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigor for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according my information, got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has an export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. This fits the profile of an ISI functionary.Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances [Indira herself expressed anguish to me on this score in late 1965 when she invited me to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University]. Rajiv’s letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt.However, Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao’s friendship continued even after Sonia’s marriage to Rajiv. Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. He was taken to hospital by the Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an air crash.Sonia’s India connectionSonia’s connection with India is always found with all wrong reasons. A rational analysis of what India gained vs. what India lost reveals a shocking picture.Foreign Agency initiated marriage to RajivThe circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defense purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, PhD [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.Illegal registration as a voterIn January 1980, Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister. The first thing Sonia did was to enroll herself as a voter. This was a gross violation of the law, enough to cause cancellation of her visa [since she was admittedly an Italian citizen then]. There was some hullabaloo in the press about it, so the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer got her name deleted in 1982. But in January 1983, she again enrolled herself as a voter! Such is her revealed disdain for Indian laws and that is her mindset even today.How and when she became an Indian citizenShe did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India, which is what good Indian wives would have done. She filled in an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner in India for five years. She said I am married, I am married into the family of the Indian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner. So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner for five years. Okay, this may have been due to some adjustment problems.In 1973, after the first five year period expired, she again applied for the permit to stay on India for another five years as a foreigner and this is the person who is going to live and die for us. I will now come to what Cho, my friend told me, never believe what she says. There is not only complete divorce between what she says and what she does there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she says. I will come to it later, there are instances and instances. So, she again applied for a foreigner’s permit. You know why? Between 1968 and 1973, the indications were all there of the imminent war with Pakistan over East Pakistan. And sure enough, there was the Bangladesh war. During the Bangladesh war, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave and come into service, she asked Rajeev to go on a long leave and he was given special permission and they left India. And throughout the period of the war, they were in Rome. Why, because the American seventh fleet was moving towards India and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about India’s survival! So she ran away from the country with her husband; to that extent faithful. And she returned only after peace was restored, after India had won the war, when because of Indira Gandhi, that family acquired stature and became invincible.So, we have to read between the lines, you have to look at the persons behind the skin. So, in 1973, she again applied for a permit to remain a foreigner in India. Now let us come to the period between 1973 and 1978. In the year 1977 when Mrs. Gandhi was defeated after she lifted the Emergency and called for elections, Sonia Gandhi learnt the mood of the nation and she went into the Italian embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return. This is the person who is going to live and die for India, please http://understand.To live in India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in such glory, with such protection, with such resources, is very different from dying for India. No one will die for something which one does not own up to. Owning up to India is different from thinking you own India.Abandoning India at the time of crisisThe bottom line observed in Sonia’s mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be “born Peruvian”, faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship.In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990.Sonia’s greed for power: How did she become party presidentSonia said that she was not interested in politics, she would not enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member. She will only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress family. She said I am just a four penny member; I will not occupy any position.And then she goes and physically throws out poor Sitaram Kesari (then president of Congress party) from the office. Physically, poor fellow. He has gone to the toilet. His chair was empty, and you know what happened? These congress goons, they went and locked up the toilet and made Sonia occupy that place. And the elderly man cried. This is how she became the Congress President. In the same way as the western armies in the past, would invade other civilizations. Seize power, she seized power in a ‘coup d’toilet’.This is how every word that she has spoken so far had nothing to do with what she did. Her conduct was the very reverse of her professions.First confrontation with Indian law(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. On November 19, 1974, as fresh entrant to Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on the floor of the House if her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi was acting as an insurance agent of a public sector insurance company [Oriental Fire & Insurance], giving the Prime Minister’s official residence as her business address, and using undue influence to insure all the officers of the PMO while remaining an Italian citizen [thus violating FERA]? There was uproar in Parliament, but Mrs. Indira Gandhi had no alternative but to cut her losses. She made a rare admission that it was so, and that it was by mistake, but that Sonia had resigned from her insurance agent status [after my question]. But Sonia was incorrigible. Her contempt for Indian law continued to manifest.The truth about Quottrochi(By Arun Shourie)Responding to a question regarding her family friend Ottavio Quattrocchi, at her singular press conference Mrs. Sonia Gandhi said, ”The CBI has said he is a suspect. But we have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty.”The fact that he received money from Bofors, as well as particulars of his accounts into which the money was paid, transferred and re-transferred are available in the public domain, in judgments which the Courts have already delivered on appeals by her family friend..The relevant judgments are as follows:1. Judgment of the Chamber of Accusation, Switzerland, dated 6 September, 1996, in regard to Colbar Investments Ltd, Inc, and Ottavio Quattrocchi v. The decision taken by the Examining Magistrate on 12 July, 1995. THIS JUDGMENT WAS FURNISHED TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT INADVERTANTLY, PERHAPS! BY THE COUNSEL OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI HIMSELF.2. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 5 August, 1998, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau of Investigation.3. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 23, February, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.4. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 26, March, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.These judgments together establish the following facts about the money received by Ottavio Quattrocchi from Bofors.In his sworn affidavit, Myles Tweedale Stott revealed that he was contacted by Ottavio Quattrocchi. In accordance with their discussions, M/s AB Bofors entered into an agreement with AE Services on 15 November, 1985, and agreed to pay the latter THREE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT if the contract was awarded to Bofors on or before 31 March, 1986.2. From 7 June, 1984 to early February, 1986, the Negotiating Committee met seventeen times. The Army consistently ranked the SOFMA gun as its number one preference. On 17 February, 1986, it switched its preference to Bofors. After a note from a Joint Secretary, mini signatures of ELEVEN OFFICERS AND MINISTERS headed by those of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Defense Minister and Prime Minister-were obtained IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS.3. Rajiv Gandhi visited Sweden on 14/15 March, 1986, and told the Swedish Prime Minister that the contract would indeed be given to Bofors. The deadline agreed to by Quattrocchi was thus met.4. On 2 May, 1986, the Government of India released 20 per cent of the contract money-that is, SEK 1,682,132,196.80- as the first advance payment to Bofors.5. On 20 August, 1986, Myles Tweedale Stott opened an account in the name of AE Services c/o Mayo Associates SA, Geneva. The account was NUMBER 18051-53 in the NORDFINANZ BANK, ZURICH.6. On 3 September, 1986, Bofors remitted SEK 50,463,966 into this account- then US $ equivalent being $ SEVEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE, AND 98 CENTS- $ 7,343, 941.98. This amount was credited into the account on 5 September, 1986.7. THIS AMOUNT PAID BY BOFORS- SEK 50,463,966- WAS EXACTLY THREE PER CENT OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AS HAD BEEN STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT OF 15 NOVEMBER, 1985 BETWEEN BOFORS AND AE SERVICES.8. On 16 September, 1986- that is, within 11 days of the money being received into the account which had just been opened by AE Services- it was transferred to ACCOUNT NUMBER 254.561.60 W held by COLBAR INVESTMENTS Ltd in the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva. The amount was transferred in two installments. $ SEVEN MILLION WERE PUT INTO THIS ACCOUNT ON 16 SEPTEMBER, 1986, AND ANOTHER $ 123,900 WAS PUT INTO IT ON 29 SEPTEMBER, 1986.9. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. COLBAR INVESTMENTS. DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT ONLY TWO PERSONS COULD OPERATE THE ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI AND HIS WIFE, MARIA. TO CONCEAL MATTERS, QUATTROCCHI GAVE A NON-EXISTENT ADDRESS IN DELHI FOR THIS ACCOUNT.10. On 6 August, 1987 a new company was floated in Panama, M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY.11. An account-NUMBER 488.320.60 X- was opened within the same bank, the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva, on the name of M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA, THE NEW COMPANY QUATTROCCHI HAD OPENED. THIS ACCOUNT ALSO COULD BE OPERATED ONLY BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI OR HIS WIFE, MARIA.12. On 25 July, 1988, ON THE INSTRUCTION OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI $ SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND FORTHY THREE THOUSAND [that is, the amount received plus the interest which had accumulated] WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS COMPANY, COLBAR INVESTMENTS TO THAT OF HIS OTHER COMPANY WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA.13. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT, LIKE COLBAR INVESTMENTS, WETELSEN OVERSEAS WAS OWNED BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI.14. In yet another round of laundering, on 21 May, 1990, another $200,000 were transferred from the account of M/s Wetelsen Overseas SA in the Union Bank of Switzerland into the account of INTER INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION with ANNSBACHER Ltd, St PETER PORT, GUERNSEY.15. The Swiss Court noted that Quattrocchi had denied receiving any commission directly or indirectly from Bofors. It noted on the other hand (a) the statement of Myles T Stott that the amount Bofors had paid AE Services was related to the agreement of sale of guns to India; (b) and the trail of subsequent transfers of the money to companies owned by Quattrocchi-from AE Services to Colbar Investments to Wetelsen Overseas. At page 7 of its judgment, the Swiss Court then noted,”This decision [ of the Examining Magistrate] was in particular imparted to Ottavio Quattrocchi, economical owner of Colbar Investments Ltd and Wetelsen Overseas SA, who in view of the documents transferred appeared to have received commissions through the channel of these companies, who had given no explanations and who had not obeyed the judge’s injunction of June 20th, 1994”.16. After setting out further facts, after rejecting roundly the assertions of Quattrocchi that he would not get justice in India and therefore the bank documents should not be allowed to be transferred at page 14 of its judgment, the Swiss Court pronounced,”The Requesting Authority can therefore neglect no track and insofar as the appellants seem to have been used as transfer channels for commissions paid out by Bofors, it is of the first importance that it have at its disposal elements as complete as possible enabling it to reconstruct the network susceptible of having been used and ending, in this case, at a firm in Guernsey..”Rejecting the contentions of Quattrocchi decisively, at page 15 of its judgment, the Swiss Court further concluded,”Now, Colbar Investments Ltd Inc and Ottavio Quattrocchi seem to have received an amount issuing from commissions paid by Bofors and one cannot therefore say that their appearance in the case, was the proceed of pure chance, especially that on the own confession of the appellants it appears that Ottavio Quattrocchi had relationships in India at the highest level and that he had very close relationships with this country.””In conclusion”, the Swiss Court said after rejecting further contentions, ”the recourse [in our terms, the appeal of Quattrocchi against the decision of the lower court that the relevant bank documents be transferred to India] IS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED.”17. On 3 July, 1993, Interpol, Switzerland, informed India that appeals filed by Quattrocchi and others had been dismissed by the Swiss Supreme Court.18. For the next week, though he was in India, no action was taken to restrain Quattrocchi. On the contrary, as had happened in the case of Win Chaddha, Quattrocchi was allowed to escape from India on 29 July, 1993.19. The investigating agency raided the house and offices of Ottavio Quattrocchi. Diaries, family photographs, telephone records nailed his extreme proximity and of his wife to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi.20. The Special Judge examining the case concluded that there was prima facie evidence to the effect that Ottavio Quattrocchi had received SEVEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS in the Bofors deal. Accordingly, he issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest.21. Interpol issued a Red Corner Alert for his arrest on 17 February, 1997.22. Quattrocchi appealed against this Red Corner Alert on 7 April, 1997.23. The Interpol Supervisory Board rejected his appeal on 20 September, 1997.24. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal against the Special Judge’s order in the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court roundly rejected the appeal. It held that it found no merit in the appeal. It held that the non-bailable warrant for his arrest was fully justified. The Court said,”We have in extensor quoted the averments which the respondent [the CBI] made in the application seeking the issuance of the warrants. The same on the face of it do constitute making of sufficient allegation pointing out that the evidence so far collected prima facie reveals that the petitioner was recipient of fraud committed in the Bofors gun deal, which he received for himself and on behalf of certain public servants and, therefore, he was required to be arrested and interrogated for expeditions investigation of the case and to reveal the truth.”25. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On his behalf his counsel told that Supreme Court that Quattrocchi would indeed appear before the Special Court, that he would cooperate with the investigating authorities who want to interrogate him, and that for this purpose the would remain in India for two weeks. The Supreme Court recorded these assurances in its order on 22 February, 1999, and directed him to appear before the Special Judge on 15 March, 1999, and remain present in India for two weeks thereafter so as to enable the investigating authorities to interrogate him. The date came and went, Quattrocchi did not appear.26. The matter was taken again to the Supreme Court. It recorded, ‘we strongly disapprove the manner in which the petitioner [Quattrocchi] has conducted himself in the proceedings before this Court”. That was on 26 March, 1999.Each of these facts is a matter of public record. Each is available in judgments of the highest courts of India and Switzerland.And yet Mrs. Sonia Gandhi says,”We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty”!There is a second striking feature. A comparison of dates will show that with each failure of Quattrocchi’s efforts to escape the law, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s efforts to bring down governments in India accelerated.Who is Quottrochi?(Dina Nath Mishra)Five years ago, India was at the crossroads. An ordinary, Italy-born woman had all but grabbed the prime ministerial chair, claiming the support of the majority of Lok Sabha members. The 120-year-old Congress willingly surrendered to the Italian bahu (daughter-in-law) of the dynasty. The oldest party in the country could not find a single individual other than her to lead it and the nation of over a billion people.On her part, the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made bold to strangle inner-party democracy. Five years ago, the nation was saved by the bell. For, finally, the nationalist in Mulayam Singh Yadav surfaced, and he quietly put paid to Sonia’s dreams. There may be a whole lot of reasons why she should not be the Prime Minister of India. But just one is enough: She is not of Indian origin.Today, when the nation is once again witnessing the battle of the ballot, every nationalist of every party should ponder whom is he voting? He may be voting for the CPI (M), which ultimately translates into support for Sonia Gandhi, whether directly or indirectly. They may be voting for Laloo Prasad Yadav’s party, which would ultimately strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi. They may be voting for the DMK-Ied front whose prime ministerial candidate is Sonia and Sonia alone. They may be electing PDF candidates in J&K but with the same result. The duty of all true nationalists then is to ensure that power does not slip into the hands of someone of foreign origin.The ramifications of her entry into Prime Minister’s Office are numerous. One of them is the Quattrocchi angle. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, originally came to India as a chartered accountant based in a Chennai- based Italian MNC. Gradually, he made his way into the corridors of power especially after Rajiv Gandhi burst on the political scene in the wake of Sanjay Gandhi’s death in a mysterious air crash. It is essential to understand the Quattrocchi phenomenon, particularly in relation to Sonia Gandhi.He worked for a firm which provided services like designing, engineering, management of construction and training of personnel in the sectors such as oil refineries, gas processing, petrochemicals, fertilizers and pipelines. He had no experience of any guns, gun-systems or related equipment. However, he was a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi’s family.Investigation has shown that the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms and they used to meet frequently. Quattrocchi and his family had free access to the Prime Minister’s house. As a result, Quattrocchi was able to project himself as a person of great influence.Even during the 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Quattrocchi had direct frisk-free entry to Prime Minister’s residence, courtesy the Italian ‘bahu’ of Indira Gandhi. Senior journalist Mahendra Ved had this to say in The Times of India (Delhi Edition; February 3, 1998): “Throughout the 1980s, Ottavio Quattrocchi, the affable Italian, was the man about town who moved in high circles and wielded influence in the corridors of power. His word, spoken in smooth Italian-accented English, was the law.“Ministers would rise in their chairs whenever he would walk in unscheduled and see him off, apparently due to his proximity to the then ruling Gandhi family. One minister, Ramachandra Rath, who did not oblige, was dropped in the next round of cabinet reshuffle, recalls a former Member of Parliament. Rath was at the moment talking to veteran Gandhian, BN Pande, and took exception to Quattrocchi simply walking in.“This was also the era of ‘four powerful women’ in New Delhi. They held kitty parties and went on picnics, recalls a Delhi socialite. They were Sonia Gandhi, Maria Quattrocchi, Nina Singh, wife of Arun Singh and Sterre, the Dutch wife of Satish Sharma.“If Rath paid a ‘price’, so did two Fertilizer secretaries, senior enough to become Cabinet Secretaries. Mr. KV Ramanathan had sought a ‘correct’ approach in the awarding of the Thal- Vaishet fertilizer project to Messrs Kellogg and CF Braun. Snam Progetti, the Italian public sector multinational that Quattrocchi represented in India, did not have the appropriate technology.”The decision by the late HN Bahuguna was reversed by Indira Gandhi in 1980. Snam was conversant only with the technology for urea-based fertilizer, while Thal-Vaishet was to run on ammonia. Snam hired the technology from a Dane, Haldor Topsoe, who was essentially an individual consultant. That matter came up in Parliament in a big way.Even while releasing the 1999 election manifesto of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi dodged the question of Quattrochi connections. But her connection with ‘Q’ is too well known to be forgotten. Here I reproduce the news story written by AB Mahapatra in Free Press Journal dated February 20, 1998.“Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose extradition is demanded by many political parties in connection with the Bofors case, had access to sensitive files in the Prime Minister’s Office when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and he was able to appoint ministers and top bureaucrats. Authentic sources told the Free Press Journal that he used to get information about cabinet meetings and its agenda much in advance. When he was visiting offices, ministers and bureaucrats used to get up from the chair to receive him. He was a frequent visitor to the official residence of India’s so-called royal family without security check, a privilege very few enjoyed.”Though officially Quattrocchi was the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, he worked as a conduit for some in receiving kickbacks and transferring them to safe havens in many deals for over a decade. “In every deal there was a cut. At least there, he was loyal to the royal family,” remarked a retired bureaucrat.He used to appoint ministers, bureaucrats, PSU executives and finalized deals which came his way, even if those were beyond his areas of expertise. The word ‘no’ perhaps did not figure in his dictionary. Soft-spoken Quattrocchi, also worked as an extra-constitutional power centre since 1980s.He got ministers and bureaucrats sacked and snubbed the most influential people of his time who challenged his authority. For Quattrocchi, it was a meteoric rise and an ignominious fall as well, as he has been disowned by the Italian company, Snamprogetti, which he represented in India and elsewhere for more than 16 years. He was known to almost all the top ranking people who mattered and his proximity to Gandhi family was the talk of the town.While the AB Bofors executive, Martin Ardbo, who negotiated the Rs 1,700 crore Bofors gun deal, mentioned him in his diary as the mysterious ‘Q’, his victims in India call him as a ‘pushing man’.He was a good PR man for Snam which won as many as 60 projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in its favor during his tenure. Today, there is nobody to save ‘Q’ in Milan, the headquarters of Snam’s holding company, “ENI.Moreover, ENI’s chief executive committed suicide in 1993 and many of its senior officers are facing police cases on charges of corruption. Snam” ‘a state-owned company of Italy, is not involved in the Bofors deal as such. But Quattrocchi’s activities as a middleman in international deals has raised many an eyebrow as far as the company’s credibility is concerned.While it is widely believed that Quattrocchi is at present a consultant to Snam in Kuala Lumpur, the company has diplomatically denied it. However, it was believed that he was operating from Snam’s India regional office when the Bofors deal was finalized in 1986.The company has clarified that it was not aware of Quattrocchi’s other alleged activities in India and maintained that he was a full time representative of the company. Even the company has said that it has no idea of Quattrocchi being wanted by the CBI which has already sought his extradition from Kuala Lumpur to prosecute him in the Bofors case.This was first noticed in 1980 when Indira Gandhi returned to power. The government had decided to award the contract for ammonia technology for RCF’s Thal plant to CFBraun of the US. But he wanted the World Bank-aided project to be awarded to Haldor Topsoe of Denmark, a sister concern of Snam. Quattrocchi played a crucial role in the appointment of PC Sethi as Petroleum Minister and tilted the deal in favor of Holder Topsoe -against the World Bank’s decision. Later, the World Bank withdrew from the project.That was his first showdown where he proved he could get what he wanted. That virtually gave a clear message to policy-makers and bureaucrats to follow Q’s line of action.He also had an encounter with Vasant Sathe, then Fertilizer Minister, over a project in Guna which till the last moment was very much in favour of Kellogg. But ‘Q’ got the decision reversed in favour of Snam. Those who toed his line were rewarded; those who did not were punished. Ti1l 1985, ‘Q’ used to resort to pressure tactic to get his work done but the real showdown took place when Snam did not get the 1,700 km long HBJ pipeline contract which went to Spie Capag of France. That perhaps was his first defeat; He wanted to punish those who stood in his way.The first to go was former Petroleum Secretary AS Gill who was very much in favor of piecemeal tenders instead of turnkey contracts to make the country self-reliant in terms of technology. That did suit ‘Q’ because India’s self-reliance in this field was bound to harm his interests.There was a standing order for implementation of Snam technology in every petroleum and fertilizer project which had been issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Government. But Gill had contested that order by showing another official order issued by Indira Gandhi where she reportedly said that there should be technology transfer in case of any foreign participation. But that did not happen in practice.Interestingly, ‘Q’ used to clarify his position a day after Gill had written to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the official file regarding technical difficulty of a particular project for clearance. “That means files were going to him accordingly:’ said a former official.Gill, who had a bright career and was all set to become the next Cabinet Secretary on the basis of seniority, told the FPJ that “there is nothing left for comment after 14 years of my retirement.”Naval Kishore Sharma, Minister of State for Petroleum, was shunted out to the All India Congress Committee as general secretary. VP Singh, who did not change evaluation norms in favor of Snam, and Arun Nehru who allegedly backed the French consortium to win a contract from Snam, had to leave both the government and the party.HS Cheema, former chairman of Gas Authority of India Limited, was removed in similar fashion. It was Quattrocchi who played a major role in removing him as chairman. “Yes, my career was a bright one all along but there was some unseen hand behind all this,” Cheema said in a telephonic interview from Solan, Himachal Pradesh to the newspaper.Former Indian Oil Corporation Chairman Venkatsubramanian, who refused to call Quattrocchi for talks, had to go even though the government was at a loss to explain the specific reason for his removal. A senior official whom Quattrocchi once offered money indirectly to get a project done, recalled, “He (‘Q’) said he can arrange Rs. two crore for the one who you like the most.” But the official got angry and asked Quattrocchi to get out of his room and never try to contact again. “That was the last time I met him. I have not received any new year greeting since then,” according to the senior official.I shall now list out all the major projects backed by Quattrocchi’s company, thanks to his proximity to Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Projects won by Snam/TopseProjects Location Client YearTwo Ammonia Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Three Urea Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Four Urea Plants Hazira Kribhco 1981One Gas Pipeline Hazira ONGC 1981One Ammonia Plant Una NFL 1983Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1983One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1984Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1984One Ammonia’plant Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985Two Urea Plants Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985One Offshore Complex ONGC 1986One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Urea Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Ammonia Plant Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988Two Urea Plants Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988One Ammonia Plant Babrala Tata Chem. 1988Two Urea Plants Babrala Tata Chem 1988One Gas Pipeline Network ONGC 1988One Ammonia Plant Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988Two Urea Plants Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988One TPA MTBE Plant Mahul BPCL 1990H-P Isobutene Plant Taloja Lubrizol 1991One Ammonia Plant Guna NFL 1994Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1994One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1994One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1994Two Urea Plants Kakinada NFCL 1994One Ammonia Plant Phulpur IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Phulpur IFFCO 1994Let us now move from fertilizers and chemicals to armaments that became the new grazing ground for Ottavio Quattrocchi,A First Information Report was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 1990, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, President of AB Bofors of Sweden, WN Chadha and GP Hinduja of London and others including beneficiaries of M/s AB Services Ltd of UK, alleging that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1982-87 and in pursuance thereof committed offences of cheating, forgery, bribery, etc., to the extent of Swedish Kroners 319.40 million (approximately Rs 64 crore) in the matter of contract regarding supply of 410 FH- 77 guns, etc., at a total cost of SEK 8410.66 million (approximately Rs 1437.72 crore).Investigation of the case included several countries including Switzerland. During Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership, these investigations were placed on the bargaining counter. Rao bought peace with Sonia to continue in power. In an atmosphere of lull, one of the chief offenders slipped to Malaysia and has not returned till date.The governments of HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral used the same Bofors case for counter-bargaining. First, Deve Gowda was ousted from power by the then president of the Congress, the late Sitaram Kesri to install IK Gujral as Prime Minister.But CBI investigators moved fast and secured some important documents from the Swiss Government. For a decade the most important missing link has been Ottavio Quattrotchi. Ottavio Quattrocchi remained in India from February 28, 1964, to July 29, 1993, except for a brief interval between March 4, 1966, and June 12, 1968. Ottavio Quattrocchi, thereafter suddenly left India on July 29/30, 1993, in order to escape the process of law and has not returned to India since then.Ottavio Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the amount of commission for himself or others received by M/s AB Services from M/s AB Bofors, as practically the entire amount, i.e. PS$ 7,123,900 (approximately 97 per cent of the total) was transferred from the account of M/s AB Services to the account of M/s Colbar Investment Limited Inc. Further, he has been transferring the funds received from M/s AB Bofors frequently from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another to avoid detection and evade the due process of law.During the proceedings before the Chamber D: Acquisition, Geneva in relation to the appeal filed by him against the execution of Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi (India), at the request of Central Bureau of Investigation, Ottavio Quattrocchi reportedly had even admitted to his relationship at the highest level in India.This is to be seen in the light of the fact that Bofors had paid SEK 50,463,966.00 in the name of commission to M/s AE Services on September 3, 1986, and virtually all this amount was transferred by AE Services to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investment Ltd; Inc. in Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva on September 16 and 29, 1986.The proximity of Ottavio Quattrocchi with the then Prime Minister of India, the contractual promise of AE Services to M/s AB Bofors to swing the deal) in their favour in a short span of time, the transfer of virtually all the commission amount (received by AE Services) to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investments Ltd.Soon after the receipt, further transfer of funds from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another soon after the disclosure of offences, his giving a non-existing address in the relevant bank, his contesting the execution of Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, his sudden disappearance from India after disclosure of his name by an appellant, all are the factors which prima facie show the involvement of Quattrocchi in the offence of criminal conspiracy for cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.On receipt of crucial documents from Switzerland in January 1997, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi on October 22, 1999, against SK Bhatnagar, WN Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi, Martin Ardbo and M/s AB Bofors for trial for offences, under sections 120-H Indian Penal Code r/w section 420 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and substantive offences thereof.Further investigation under Section 173 (8) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 continued. At the time of filing of charge sheet, accused Ottavi of Quattrocchi was based in Malaysia and as such, proceedings for his extradition were initiated there. After the lower court did not accede to the request of his extradition on certain preliminary technical grounds, the matter was taken up in higher courts and at present, it is pending before the Court of Appeals in Kuala Lumpur.CBI is in touch with the authorities in Italy and efforts for ascertaining the present whereabouts of Quattrocchi through Interpol and diplomatic channels are continuing.The CBI was informed by Interpol, London, on June 25, 2003, that Quattrocchi, against whom charge sheet was also filed along with others in CBI case No RC 1(A)/90- ACU-IV/SIG (Bofors case) has an amount of three million pounds (approximately ) in a UK bank account and the same was likely to be moved out very shortly. The CBI requested IP, London, to freeze the said account pending a formal Letters Rogatory. A Letters Rogatory dated July 21, 2003, was issued by the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi. The Letters Rogatory was further supplemented on certain points on July 24, 2003, by the Court.An amount of US$ 1 million and Euro 3 million held in two bank accounts i.e. Account No. 5A51516L & 5A51516M of accused Ottavio Quattrocchi held with BSI AG, 39 King Street, London EC2V 8QD were frozen by the authorities in the UK on the strength of a restraint order issued by the London High Court, Queen’s Bench Division on July 25, 2003 pursuant to Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of the Special Judge, New Delhi.The aforesaid restraint order was challenged by Ottavio Quattrocchi and the London High Court has dismissed his application for discharge of restraint order with cost of UK £ 30,000.00 vide its judgment delivered on November 24, 2003.Subsequently, an appeal was filed by Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Supreme Court of Judicature, London, against the judgment of London High Court. The Supreme Court of Judicature, London, has dismissed the said application on January 20, 2004, again with cost of UK £ 38,000.00.The authorities in the United Kingdom have also been requested by the CBI to conduct investigation into the source of aforesaid restrained funds. While the funds held in the aforesaid accounts have been restrained, the request for execution of Letters Rogatory is still pending.A request had been conveyed to the concerned authorities in UK through Interpol Division of CBI on Decmber 3, 2003, and reminder dated January 30, 2004, for execution of the aforesaid Letters Rogatory on priority and intimating the present status in the matter. But so far, no response has been received from the UK authorities in the above matter.Where did all this money come from? Why did Bofors pay such huge sums to Quattrocchi when India purchased field guns for its army? Since Sonia Gandhi has been the dearest friend of the Quattrocchi’s for over three decades and since she provided them unprecedented access to the prime minister’s office and residence for long years, she owes the country an explanation.Maruti Scandal and FERA violationsThe second and equally disturbing event is the impunity with which Sonia Gandhi violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 30 years ago. This happened with the launch of a company called Maruti Technical Services Private Limited (MS’FPL) on November 16, 1970. This company was set up by her along with her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of a ‘wholly indigenous motor car’.It is in the context of this company, of which she was half-owner and managing director while being an Italian national that the question of FERA violation arises.The company’s story provides valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. The birth of MTSPL, preceded that of another company, Maruti Limited, which was to avail of the former’s ‘know-how’ to produce the cars.The Articles of Association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it.Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render ‘technical know-how’ to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. In June 1971, Maruti Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its Managing Director. On December 15, 1971, MTSPL allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti Ltd, according to which MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 Lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how.This document describes MTSPL, of which Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi were the only directors, as a technical company ‘which has the capability of imparting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car’. It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of two per cent of the net sales of motor cars.Six weeks after this agreement, Maruti Ltd paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to MTSPL. Later, MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase ‘technical know-how’ from him!The next move came about a year later. MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi as its managing director. This happened at an ‘extraordinary general meeting of share holders’ held on January 25, 1973.Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter, MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company, subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites.Sometime later, the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi. For some reason, this was later sub-divided into two share certificates of 1900 and 1000 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to her on February 4, 1974. On the same day, 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. This company, called Maruti Heavy Vehicles Private Limited, had 13 shareholders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares.This was incorporated on February 22, 1974, and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974, in regard to her appointment as its MD. But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary.In 1975, this road roller company too sought out Maruti Technical Services Company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975, between the two companies, according to which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts.Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies?Was MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, competent to provide technical know-how to make ‘a wholly indigenous motor car’ and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi technically qualified and competent to be the managing director of such companies?A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice AC Gupta, which probed the Maruti Scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission’s report said SM Rege, who was Secretary of Maruti Ltd, told the commission it was known to all concerned that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India.S Kumar, Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of MTSPL and MHVPL to Sonia Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and therefore `ab initio void’. After listening to the testimony of several such witnesses, the commission concluded:“It was a fact known to all concerned that Ms Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the Act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India,”The commission further noted, “She tendered her resignation on January 21, 1975. It is surprising that Ms Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company.”The Gupta Commission also recorded the fact that A Banerjee, Income- Tax Officer, disallowed part of the remuneration to Sonia Gandhi as excessive “because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company”.Among other issues, the commission went into the question of the competence of MTSPL to provide know-how to make cars and road rollers. WHF Muller, a German technician on the staff of MTSPL, told the commission that all that Maruti Ltd produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were ‘hand-made’ and ‘fabricated/purchased in parts’ and not of the same design. They were different from one another.Yet another witness said MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on its rolls. There was no fixed and finalized design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show rooms “to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent”.Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show rooms, narrated their experience to the commission. “One had to push the car to his show room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000 // $1 = Rs.40) he had paid for it.”The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by Maruti Ltd against the dealers who wanted to back out. “One of the dealers, Mr. SC Agarwal, who terminated his agency was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail. Mr. Agarwal had to apologize by touching Sanjay’s feet. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit was arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.”Witnesses also told the commission that MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road rollers. The commission, therefore, concluded: “Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of Maruti cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers.”The Maruti cars that are now on Indian roads came to be produced after the Central Government took over the company and brought genuine “know-how” from Japan and dispensed’ with the bogus “Italian” know-how that the company was saddled with in its formative years.In any case, the bottom line is that the contents of the Gupta Commission Report and the Voters’ List Episode provide sufficient evidence of Sonia Gandhi’s disdain for Indian laws. Regrettably, it would appear the Nehru-Gandhi family was party to these fraudulent declarations.Although an Italian citizen, she was appointed Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Limited on January 25, 1973. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which was debated and passed by Parliament that year, came into force on January 1, 1974.Among other things, it prohibited foreigners from owning shares or accepting appointment in Indian companies without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Yet, Sonia continued as Managing Director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the Act, which listed the punishment for contravention of FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years.Smuggling of Indian artifacts(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers, not a day passed when the PM’s security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [i.e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby’s and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi’s National way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands.Rahul’s expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves?Terrorist connections(By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Sonia has had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told me and was confirmed to me [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when I met him in Tunis on October 17, 1990 at the request of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi and I were good friends from 1978, but became very close buddies after V.P. Singh had betrayed him in 1987. We met practically every day, mostly in the early hours from 1AM to 4AM. It was at my suggestion that he made Chandrashekhar the PM. And contrary to public impression, he was not mainly responsible for the fall of Chandrashekar government in which I was a Minister.Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE [”the Tamil Tigers”] since 1984. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions.Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court.Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed.The Maruti scam (by Arun Shourie)Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers — even official papers — of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.Donation of public money to Sonia controlled foundations to promote her interestsReal estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built — the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls — the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores. The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi and enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world — Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate — to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia, every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide. The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed — the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, “The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust.”What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully — for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.7: Bilateral and multilateral programs of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.8: Brief report on implementation of programs from April 1994 to March 1995.9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.11: Gita Govinda project.12: IGNCA newsletter.13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.15: Matters relating to building project.16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: “I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India’s approval to the alterations.”The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less “unanimously approved” changes in the Trust Deed. And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?She became President for life. The other trustees — two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years — became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out. The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers’ money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force — on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted — without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post “approval” was obtained from an obliging trustee. That “approval” was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, “no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet.” Other departments were manifestly concerned; concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.The rule proceeds to provide, “Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may… (b) Involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant… (d) Otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not…”And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament — Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan — began seeking details, and raising objections.For a full two and a half years, governments — of the Congress (I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress (I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral — made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over Governmental assets of incalculable value — through technicalities collusively arranged.Here is an overview of Sonia’s EmpireName of the trust Year founded Budget Function1 Rajiv Gandhi Trust 1991 Rs. 24 Crore The Trust Helps the women and the children. Also active in the field of literacy, health, aviation and science.2 Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies 1992 Rs. 3 crore Study of the public policy from Rajiv Gandhi’s viewpoint3 Jawahar Bhawan Trust 1989 Unknown Registered for maintaining Jawahar Bhawan4 Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust 1985 Rs. 3 crore Organizes lecture on the occasion of the distribution of Indira Gandhi Peace Prize given once in every two years5 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Museum and Library 1985 Unknown This a Government committee which besides maintaining Nehru memorials organizes seminars and exhibitions6 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund 1965 Rs. 7 crore It maintains Anand Bhawan and Swaraj Bhavan in additions to providing Nehru fellowship7 Veer Bhoomi and Sriperumbdur Memorial committee 1991 by the Ministry of the Rural Development This committee which is solely handled by Sonia, manages the two memorial places associated with Rajiv GandhiRGF list of donorsOne another dimension of Sonia Gandhi’s greed for real estate and money [power has been amply exhibited in the way she acquired six trusts bearing the name of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It is a well-known fact that Jawahar Bhawan was built to house the Congress party headquarters, but the building worth hundred crores was manipulated to be the property of Rajiv Gandhi Trust of which she is a chairperson trustee for the life. It may be recalled that scores of public and private sector, undertakings were advised to pay handsome donations to RG foundation. The sample of the donors’ list along with the money is given below: (As per the list of donors published in daily Jansatta on December 14, 1992)Name AmountJ.N.M fund 1,00000.00Hindustan Times Ltd. 20,00000.00Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. 6,00000.00M/s J&K Industries Ltd 5,00000.00M/s Straw Products Ltd. 5,00000.00Smt. Sonia Gandhi 1,00000.00Shri G D Parthasarathi 5,00000.00Shri Bharat H. Barai 1,00000.00Dunlop India 20,00000.00Mathair & Plant India Ltd. 5,00000.00Orissa Cement Ltd. 2,00000.00Hindustan Door Oliver Ltd. 5,00000.00Shri M. R. Chabariya Charity Trust 1,00000.00ITC Ltd. 50,00000.00ANZ Grindlays Bank 6,00000.00M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Cor. Ltd. 5,00000.00Ravi’s Sant Pvt. Ltd. 1,51,000.00Click Nicson Ltd. 7,50000.00Niryat Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I) 2,00000.00Snow Chem India Ltd. 7,50000.00Bajaj Auto Ltd. 25,00000.00M. N. Dastoor & Company 5,00000.00M/s JCT Ltd. 12,50000.00M/S Fera Alloys Corpo Ltd 2,50000.00M/S APJ Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Simplo (E) Tea Company Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Surendra Overseas Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Empire Plantation (E) Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Usha Rectifire Corp (E) Ltd. 10,00000.00M/s Prajakta Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s Kausar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s S G Chemical and Dyes Trading Ltd 10,00000.00Mahalakshmi Charitable Society 12,50000.00M/s Godfray Philips (E) Ltd 12,50000.00Shri SS Surjewala 1,11000.00M/s Batliboi & Company Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Carner Sone Brands Ltd. 1,50000.00Shri Natthu Bhai Patel 1,00000.00M/s Associated Beverage & Distilleries 1,00000.00U N Mehta Charitable Trust 1,50000.00All India Congress Committee 50,00000.00M/s Indian Polaseze Comp Ltd. 5,00000.00M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Petro 3,00000.00M/s Indian Acritize Ltd. 1,00000.00Central Bank of India 2,00000.00M M Joshi Trust 5,00000.00C D Vajpayee Trust 5,00000.00K N Singh Trust 5,00000.00R Gupta Trust 5,00000.00Shri B. N. srivastava 5,00000.00Treasurer, AICC 50,00000.00Sethi Trust 15,00000.00Indo-soviet Pharmacy 1,00000.00M/s Jury Agro Chemicals Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises 2,000000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises (Rawgandha Mint) 1,00000.00M/s Adarsh Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Mejestic Acriviter 2,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 2,00000.00Shri Ram Krishna Lodge 2,00000.00Rangnath Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Shri Ram liquor 2,00000.00Mahamahim Srhi Li pand 5,15771.00Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd. 10,00000.00Treasurer, AICC(I) 50,00000.00M/s Premium Exports Ltd. 2,50000.00Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Jyotsna Holding Pvt. Ltd., 15,00000.00Warden Armenion Church 10,00000.00Rohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7,50000.00Meravnazi Security 1,00000.00ONGC 1,00000.00UniPatch Ruber Ltd., 1,00000.00Shri Harshad S Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Promor Race Asset Manage Ltd- Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri J H Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri Ashwin Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00RPG enterprises (According to 4,18900.00(According to RGF foundation 1,83100.00M/s Borosil Glass Works Ltd 1,00000.00M/s M P Dist Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Asian Capital Consolidated Fund 1,00000.00Shri P V Huglar 5,16000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Lalit Suri 50,00000.00M/s Wahwan Automotive Centre 1,23396.59Peerless General Finance & Investment 50,00000.00Setia Trust 5,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Smt Meena Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Shri Vishal Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd., 25,00000.00Fund Raising sub committee for RGF 12,33370.00All India Congress Committee (I) 25,00000.00M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 25,00000.00M/s Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Mysore Cements Ltd., 20,00000.00M/s Simco Ltd., 5,00000.00M/s coloride Ind Ltd., 15,00000.00M/s VXL Indian Ltd., 10,00000.00CESC Ltd., 37,50000.00Miscellaneous 1,15000.00Soka Glai International 5,74268.00Firozeshah Godrej Foundation 4,00000.00Treasurer, AICC (I) 25,00000.00Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 10,00000.00Dena Bank 1,00000.00Finish Development Agency (Phinida) 3,44827.59Vijayshri Liquor Company Pvt. Ltd., 5,00000.00H. Themmegowda 7,50000.00J P Narayan Swamy 5,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 7,50000.00The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company 25,00000.00Nobody pays any money for nothing. Most of the money has been paid by repeated reminders (read coercion)IGNCAIndia Today published a report about Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts in its issue dated July 5, 1999. The write up exposed her manipulation, some portions are given below.“… with Congress having ruled the country the longest, it is not surprising that its president Sonia Gandhi has not only gained her family’s political inheritance but also control over its vast assets in the form of public trusts, institutions and funds. The IGNCA was set up in 1987 with a corpus fund of Rs. 50 crore, a grant of Rs. 100 crore for its grandiose yet-to-come-up edifice, 21 acres of prime land in Delhi (worth of Rs. 5,000 crore), a battery of Government officers on deputation and 15 duplex flats in the capitals Asian Games complex (worth over Rs. 1 crore each).The IGNCA’s original trust deed provided for the trustees to hold office for a period of 10 years, the Member-Secretary to be appointed by the Government and for the President of India in his capacity as the visitor to periodically review the functioning of the IGNCA. However, in May 1995 the trustees without seeking the permission of the Government made crucial changes to the trust deed. According to a document circulated by the IGNCA Workers Union, “During 1994-95, when the Congress party was facing an uncertain elections, Vatsyayan, the then Member-Secretary, got certain major changes carried out in the basic structure of the IGNCA so as to remove the role of the Government of India in the affairs of the IGNCA altogether”.The new trust deed made Sonia life president of the IGNCA and bestowed life membership on R. Venkataraman, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Pupul Jayakar, H.Y.Sharada Prasad and Vatsyayan. When Jayakar declined to accept life membership saying “Indira would be shuddering in her grave if she knew what was happening in her name”. Mahmohan Singh was drawn into the charmed coterie in her place. More significantly, the role of the President of India as visitor was done away with as was the power of the Government to appoint the member-Secretary. Kapila Vatsayayan, who till then held the post with the rank of a Secretary n the Union Government and had reached the age of superannuation, was given the rank equivalent to that of a Minister of State and re-designated Academic Director. Madhavrao Scindia, then HRD Minister, gave post facto approval to the changes without consulting either his department or others like finance, urban affairs of parliamentary affairs.Nor was the matter ever discussed by the Cabinet, then. With the IGNCA clearly violating its own original constitution, the Attorney-General believes that the so-called life president and all the life trustees were not legally exercising their authority over the institution. Moreover, despite receiving huge amounts of public money, the IGNCA does not submit itself to scrutiny of the CAG and instead has hired private Chartered Accountants to do the job. The Government insists that the IGNCA open its book for the CAG and is all set to see this matter to its logical conclusion. “We may even take over its assets if they don’t restore the original trust deed”, says a high official in the DoC. Meanwhile, notices are being issued to the IGNCA officials to vacate the Asiad Village flats where they have been overstaying without even paying the nominal Rs. 685 monthly rent. However, in a country where occupation is two-thirds of the title and political exigencies more powerful than the niceties of law, Joshi’s audacious bid to restore status quo ante in the IGNCA may prove to be difficult, if not more, than throwing out the Pakistani intruders in Kargil”.BoforsFinally the mega corruption issue – the Bofors investigation – which Sonia Gandhi never allowed to be completed. During the Narasimha Rao years, he bought peace with Sonia Gandhi on the bargaining counter in Bofors inquiry itself. The tenure of V P Singh was too short, and Chandra Shepherd was not too enthusiastic, for the probe to be completed. When Deve Gowda pushed the inquiry and then CBI chief Joginder singh was about to start the proceedings further, Sonia Gandhi saw to it that Gowda was toppled. It was again for the furtherance of the proceedings by Prime Minister I K Gujral, that the government led by him was toppled. When Vajpayee gave clearance and the papers went to the President, within a fortnight his Government was too voted out on the specific instructions of Sonia Gandhi.The CBI has enough documents to prove close linkage of ‘Q’ with Sonia and her family. The joint photographs showing Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv’s family members, and ‘Q, several travel documents which prove beyond doubt that Mr. Q’ and Sonia’s family were more closer than knowledgeable people can think of. Quattrocchi’s name is there in kick-back accounts; the remaining last leg of the inquiry is bound to catch Mr. ‘Q’ red-handed, which would in turn show the real greedy Sonia.Sonia vs. Gandhi: The controversy, the Full Page Ad in New York Times in Oct 2007 that triggered multi million dollar lawsuits against activists in US.US activists requested Sonia proxy in US, INOC (India National Overseas Congress) that Sonia is not the right person to represent Gandhi’s principles at UN on Oct 2, 2007 and not to use his name for political purposes. They requested to bring in a freedom fighter from Congress party itself. But INOC started calling activists fundamentalists and other names. About 500 NRIs gathered in front of UN when Sonia spoke on Oct 2nd, 2007 and they took out a full page Ad in New York Times Ad. In Apr 2008, INOC sued with multi 100 million dollar lawsuits which were challenged in US courts and defeated. READ THE WHOLE STORY AT Gandhi Heritage -It is an accepted fact that almost every Indian politician is corrupt if measured against Gandhian principles every Indian politician will fail on some points or other but Sonia would fail on every point. Sonia is a symbol of what Gandhi advocated against. She is trying to wear Gandhi’s cloak to cash on Gandhi’s fame and gain legitimacy. Gandhi stood for:I. Sat — which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: TruthSonia repeatedly proved her untruthfulness and dishonesty. Even in a trivial issue such as her educational qualifications she lied. Furthermore there is no public record of her ever apologizing for her mistakes.II. “Ahimsa” — refusal to inflict injury on others.Sonia is known for vengeance actions. She is known for intolerance towards party members who rejoined her party.III. “Tapasya” — willingness for self-sacrifice.There is no incidence of Sonia’s sacrifice. She sacrificed India, congress party and national icons such as Gandhi to promote herself and her children.Anybody who respects Gandhi will be against misusing his name and fame. This protest is an attempt to save Gandhi’s name and legacy from misuse..

By setting and aligning incentives properly, with bright-line law which is easy for regulators to operate.In my view:The section of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 repealed in 1999 which separated Commercial Banking from Investment Banking and from Insurance must be reinstated, because the Volcker Rule is too hard for regulators to operate/enforce. The bright line rule was much easier to enforce because the lines were very clear. Need to do something special across corporate boundaries? Syndicate it.Money's too fungible to rely on anything other than legally separate corporate entities, and having Bank Deposit Insurance (i.e. FDIC) on one side of the same house invites cross-subsidization of risk (i.e. abuse, moral hazard) from the side of the house that the FDIC does not supervise because it’s not part of their remit.Systemically important Financial Institutions (i.e. "too big to fail") must not be allowed to exist - the "living will" requirement is silly nonsense (see Fed, FDIC rebuke bankruptcy plans of 11 of nation's biggest banks), and will be found to have not been properly updated for a given such institution that gets in trouble in the future. If it's too big to be allowed to fail, it's too big to be allowed to exist at all, and the current ones must be cut down to size.This means setting hard limits in law, like the law that prohibits any single deposit-taking bank from having more than 10% of the deposits of the USA (Bank of America (company) is just under the limit, and we might want to think about lowering that one to 5%). The limits must be stated in percentages of economic measures (e.g. GDP) rather than particular dollar amounts.This can be viewed as in the same economic policy vein as Antitrust Law: require a minimum number of entities (prevent cartels, oligopolies, and monopolies) to ensure competition and resultant efficient allocation of capital.Once they're separate again, Investment Banks must be prohibited from being Public Companies, i.e., selling shares of stock on the public markets to all comers - they must be legally restricted to being Corporate Partnerships. Investment banks walk on the high wire, taking lots of risk, and that risk shifts around much too fast (HFT, anyone?) for uninvolved investors to monitor the management - that's a straight Principal-Agent Problem.I don't want to restrict their ability to leverage to the skies if they want to - I just want to be able to not care if they screw up & go bust in so doing. If the managers are required to be the owners, the problem goes away. Hell, the managers have every incentive to monitor each other!If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Credit Default Swaps are Insurance, and must be regulated as such (e.g. I can (and should) carry fire insurance for my house, but I shouldn't be able to buy fire insurance for your house (and I can't - it's illegal because of the obvious perverse incentive for me to become an arsonist)).I'm sure that a review of all financial instruments will find very little is actually new under the sun - just the names have been changed to avoid existing regulations (which are usually born out of hard-won experience). That has to stop, which is to say, again, bright line rules for what things are being bought and sold in broad categories, with established regulations on them.To be completely explicit, the section of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which prohibits government regulation of Swaps (by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or anyone else) must be repealed as a first step, and this business of removing a financial instrument from a regulated category by renaming must be stomped (“it’s not insurance - it’s a ‘swap’ or a ‘hedge’ - that’s very different!”).There's another rule I believe I want, but I don't quite know how to state it, other than in my half-formed way: no trading of risk more than two steps removed from primary exposure. For example, there is insurance, and re-insurance, but so far as I know, no re-re-insurance.The point is to ensure that those who are assuming risk can directly see/assess the risks they're underwriting - too many steps removed and that becomes very difficult. That was the fundamental failure at American International Group (AIG) with CDS (quite aside from effectively writing 10 policies on one asset at risk ... which they also ended up doing) because: they couldn't see what they were ultimately insuring.I'm still waiting on answers to Of the capital that is "allocated" by Wall Street (e.g. investment banks), how much, as a percentage, is actually invested, and how much, as a percentage, can be described as simple betting on outcomes, as in a sportsbook operation? - my suspicion is "more than 50%" is simple betting these days, and I'd like that curbed below 5% if not eliminated, with the goal that the capital currently involved in such betting thus be freed up for productive investment in companies.Understand: I'm not trying to completely nuke speculation ... so long as such is providing a useful amount of liquidity and price discovery.I'm not sure how to fix the mess with the Credit Rating Agencies being legally enshrined as Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations, or that bond sellers pay the ratings companies for ratings, rather than the bond buyers (investors). There's a public policy presumption in law that a whole lot of entities (governments, pension funds, lots of commercial banks) are not necessarily "sophisticated investors" and the requirement that they not invest in anything not of "investment grade" (which is a sensible public policy goal) necessarily implies someone is providing such ratings.The obvious alternative is to make the NRSRO status and the "investment grade" minimum requirement go away, but that throws those presumed-unsophisticated investors to the wolves. Perhaps require them to do their investing with entities that have Fiduciary Responsibility to them and attendant legal liability? Maybe.The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act fixed exactly none of these problems - it papered them over.Paul Volcker is a very, very smart economist and legendary former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve (huge props to him for successfully stomping the nasty Stagflation of the 1970s & early 1980s), and his Volcker Rule as he states it is the right thing in principle, but the regulations they're writing to define all the terms & conditions are so grey and messy (and probably pliable or go-around-able) that I think the point is probably lost. That's why I want legally separated corporations in these differently regulated businesses back. Easy, obvious, bright-line rule that everyone can easily understand, and regulators and courts can easily enforce.I'm still waiting for additional answers to What problems, moral hazards, systemic risks, etc., did the Dodd-Frank Act not repair/regulate?As one wag observed, Capitalism without Bankruptcy is like Catholicism without Hell.

Notifications(460 kb)Money Transfer Service Scheme – Revised GuidelinesRBI/2012-13/436A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 89March 12, 2013ToAll Authorised Persons, who are Indian Agents under Money Transfer Service SchemeMadam / Sir,Money Transfer Service Scheme – Revised GuidelinesAttention of all Authorised Persons (APs), who are Indian Agents under the Money Transfer Service Scheme (MTSS) is invited to the Notification dated June 4, 2003 on MTSS, as amended from time to time and the specific permission accorded to them under FEMA, 1999 by the Reserve Bank to undertake inward cross-border money transfer activities in India, through tie-up arrangements with Overseas Principals.2. The MTSS Guidelines have been revised in consultation with the Government of India and the revised MTSS Guidelines are in the Annex-I.3. All other instructions issued vide the said Notification ibid, as amended from time to time remain unchanged.4. These guidelines would also be applicable mutatis mutandis to all Sub Agents of the Indian Agents under MTSS and it will be the sole responsibility of the APs (Indian Agents) to ensure that their Sub Agents also adhere to these guidelines.5. Authorised Persons (Indian Agents) may bring the contents of this circular to the notice of their constituents concerned.6. The directions contained in this Circular have been issued under Sections 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and are without prejudice to permissions/approvals if any, required under any other law.Yours faithfully,(Rudra Narayan Kar)Chief General Manager--in-ChargeAnnex-IRevised Guidelines on Money Transfer Service SchemePART-ASECTION IGuidelines for permitting(authorising) Indian Agents under Money Transfer Service Scheme (MTSS):1. Introduction1.1Money Transfer Service Scheme (MTSS) is a quick and easy way of transferring personal remittances from abroad to beneficiaries in India. Only inward personal remittances into India such as remittances towards family maintenance and remittances favouring foreign tourists visiting India are permissible. No outward remittance from India is permissible under MTSS. The system envisages a tie-up between reputed money transfer companies abroad known as Overseas Principals and agents in India known as Indian Agents who would disburse funds to beneficiaries in India at ongoing exchange rates. The Indian Agent is not allowed to remit any amount to the Overseas Principal. Under MTSS the remitters and the beneficiaries are individuals only.Statutory Basis1.2 In terms of the powers granted under Section 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, the Reserve Bank of India may accord necessary permission (authorization) to any person to act as an Indian Agent under the Money Transfer Service Scheme. No person can handle the business of cross-border money transfer to India in any capacity unless specifically permitted by the Reserve Bank.1.3 These guidelines lay down basic conditions for grant of permission (authorisation) to Indian Agents and renewal of existing MTSS permissions given to them. These guidelines also include guidelines for Overseas Principals and appointment of Sub-Agents by the Indian Agents. The guidelines are not exhaustive and other relevant information, security considerations, etc., will be factored into the decision of permitting an entity. These guidelines will apply to all applications pending with the Reserve Bank for new arrangements, renewal of permissions given to Indian Agents, etc. Existing Indian Agents who do not meet the eligibility norms will have to meet the norms in a phased manner with the approval of the Reserve Bank or wind up the business of money transfer immediately.2. GuidelinesEntry NormsThe applicant to become an Indian Agent should be an Authorised Dealer Category-I bank or an Authorised Dealer Category-II or a Full Fledged Money Changer (FFMC), as defined in the A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 25 [A.P. (FL Series) Circular No. 02] dated March 6, 2006, or a Scheduled Commercial Bank or the Department of Posts.The applicant should have minimum Net Owned Funds of Rs.50 lakh.Note :- (i) Owned Funds :- (Paid-up Equity Capital + Free reserves + Credit balance in Profit & Loss A/c) minus (Accumulated balance of loss, Deferred revenue expenditure and Other intangible assets)(ii) Net Owned Funds :- Owned funds minus the amount of investments in shares of its subsidiaries, companies in the same group, all (other) non-banking financial companies as also the book value of debentures, bonds, outstanding loans and advances made to and deposits with its subsidiaries and companies in the same group in excess of 10 per cent of the Owned funds.3. Procedure for making Applications to the Reserve BankApplication for necessary permission to act as an Indian Agent may be made to the Chief General Manager-in-Charge, Forex Markets Division, Foreign Exchange Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Amar Building, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 and should be accompanied by the documents pertaining to its proposed Overseas Principal, as detailed in Section II below and the following documents:A declaration to the effect that no proceedings have been initiated by / are pending with the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) / Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or any other law enforcing authorities, against the applicant or its directors and that no criminal cases are initiated / pending against the applicant or its directors.A declaration to the effect that proper policy framework on KYC / AML / CFT, in accordance with the guidelines issued vide A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 18[ A.P.(FL/RL Series) Circular No. 05] dated November 27, 2009, as amended from time to time, will be put in place on obtaining permission (authorization) of the Reserve Bank and before commencement of money transfer operations.Name and address of the Overseas Principal with whom the MTSS will be conducted.Full details of the operation of the scheme by the Overseas Principal.List of branches in India and their addresses where MTSS will be conducted by the applicant.Estimated volume of business per month/year under the scheme.Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the last two financial years of the applicant, if available or a copy of the latest audited accounts, with a certificate from Statutory Auditors regarding the position of the Net Owned Funds as on the date of application.Memorandum and Articles of Association of the applicant where either a provision exists for taking up money transfer business or an appropriate amendment thereto has been filed with the Company Law Board.Confidential Report from at least two of the applicant's bankers in sealed cover.Details of sister/ associated concerns of the applicant functioning in the financial sector.A certified copy of the board resolution for undertaking money transfer business by the applicant.A letter from the proposed Overseas Principal, agreeing to enter into tie up with the applicant and also to provide necessary collateral.4. Collateral requirementCollateral equivalent to 3 days' average drawings or US $ 50,000, whichever is higher, may be kept by the Overseas Principal in favour of the Indian Agent with a designated bank in India. The minimum amount of US $ 50,000 shall be kept as a foreign currency deposit while the balance amount may be kept in the form of a Bank Guarantee. The adequacy of collateral should be reviewed by Indian Agents at quarterly intervals on the basis of remittances received during the past three months.5. Other conditionsOnly cross-border personal remittances, such as, remittances towards family maintenance and remittances favouring foreign tourists visiting India shall be allowed under this arrangement. Donations/contributions to charitable institutions/trusts, trade related remittances, remittance towards purchase of property, investments or credit to NRE Accounts shall not be made through this arrangement.A cap of US $ 2500 has been placed on individual remittance under the scheme. Amounts up to Rs.50,000/- may be paid in cash to a beneficiary in India. Any amount exceeding this limit shall be paid by means of account payee cheque/ demand draft/ payment order, etc., or credited directly to the beneficiary's bank account only. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the beneficiary is a foreign tourist, higher amounts may be disbursed in cash. Full details of such transactions should be kept on record for scrutiny by the auditors/ inspectors.Only 30 remittances can be received by a single individual beneficiary under the scheme during a calendar year.6. Criteria for RBI decisions(i) The Indian Agents need to have strength and efficiency to function profitably in a highly competitive environment. As a number of Indian Agents are already functioning, permission (authorization) will be issued on a very selective basis to those who meet the above requirements, have necessary outreach and who are likely to conform to the best international and domestic standards of customer service and efficiency.(ii) The Indian Agent should commence its money transfer operations under the scheme within a period of six months from the date of issuance of permission(authorization) and inform the Central Office and the Regional Office concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank.SECTION IIGuidelines for Overseas Principals:Indian Agents entering into arrangements with Money Transfer Operators overseas, known as Overseas Principals, may note that Overseas Principals with adequate volume of business, track record and outreach will only be considered under the scheme. Further, since the primary objective of permitting the business of money transfer business in the country is to facilitate cheaper and more efficient means of receipt of remittances, operators with limited outreach in terms of branch network in the country and localized operations overseas will not be entertained.Applicant Indian Agents should submit the following documents / comply with the following requirements, in respect of their Overseas Principals:The Overseas Principal should obtain necessary authorisation from the Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act (PSS Act), 2007 to commence/ operate a payment system. Prior to such authorization, the Reserve Bank will verify the background and antecedents of the Overseas Principal with the help of Govt. of India,The Overseas Principal should be a registered entity, licenced by the Central Bank / Government or financial regulatory authority of the country concerned for carrying on Money Transfer Activities. The country of registration of the Overseas Principal should be AML compliant.The minimum Net Worth of Overseas Principals should be at least US $ 1 million as per the latest audited balance sheet, which should be maintained at all times. However, the Reserve Bank may consider relaxing the minimum Net Worth criterion in case of Overseas Principals incorporated in FATF member countries and are supervised by the concerned Central Bank/ Government or financial regulatory authority.The Overseas Principal should be well established in the money transfer business with a track record of operations in well regulated markets.The arrangement with Overseas Principal should result in considerably increasing access to formal money transfer facilities at both ends.The Overseas Principal should be registered with the overseas trade / Industry bodies.The Overseas Principal should have a good rating from one of the international credit rating agencies.The Overseas Principal should submit confidential reports from at least two of its bankers.The Overseas Principal should submit a report certified by independent Chartered Accountants, regarding steps taken to comply with anti money laundering norms in the home/ host country.The Overseas Principals will be fully responsible for the activities of their Agents and Sub Agents in India.Proper records of remitters as also beneficiaries pertaining to all pay-outs in India are to be maintained by the Overseas Principals. All records must be made accessible on demand to the Reserve Bank or other agencies of the Government of India, viz., Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Home Affairs, FIU-IND, etc. Full details of the remitters and the beneficiaries should be provided by the Overseas Principals, if called for.SECTION IIIGuidelines for appointment of Sub Agents by Indian Agents:1. The SchemeUnder the Scheme, Indian Agents can enter into Sub Agency agreements with entities, fulfilling certain conditions, for the purpose of undertaking money transfer business.2. Sub AgentsA Sub Agent should have a place of business, and whose bonafides are acceptable to the Indian Agent. Indian Agents are free to decide on the tenor of the arrangement as also the commission or fee through mutual agreement with the Sub Agent. The audit and on-site inspection of premises and records of the Sub Agents by the Indian Agent to be conducted at least once in a month and in a year respectively.3. Procedure for Submission of information in respect of Sub Agents by Indian AgentsIndian Agents should submit necessary information in the prescribed format (Annex-III) in soft copy form pertaining to their existing Sub Agents within one month of the date of this circular, to the respective Regional Offices of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Indian Agent falls, for onward submission to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Govt. of India (GoI) through the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Govt. of India (GoI). Thereafter, Indian Agents should submit on a quarterly basis necessary information in the prescribed format (Annex-III) in soft copy form pertaining to their Sub Agents appointed during a quarter within 15 days of the end of the quarter, to the respective Regional Offices of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Indian Agent falls for onward submission to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Govt. of India (GoI) through the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Govt. of India (GoI). In case of any objection by the MHA, the Sub Agency arrangement concerned should be terminated immediately.Indian Agents should also furnish certificates along with the information in Annex-III that the Sub Agents appointed by them comply with the eligibility norms and also they have done due diligence, wherever applicable, in respect of them.4. Due Diligence of Sub AgentsThe Indian Agents and the Overseas Principals should undertake the following minimum checks while conducting due diligence of the Sub Agents, other than ADs Cat-I, ADs Cat-II, Scheduled Commercial Banks, FFMCs and the Deptt. of Posts.existing business activities of the Sub Agent/ its position in areaShop & Establishment/ other applicable municipal certification in favour of the Sub Agentverification of physical existence of location of the Sub Agentconduct certificate of the Sub Agent from the local police authorities. (certified copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association and Certificate of Incorporation in respect of incorporated entities).Note: Although obtaining of conduct certificate of the Sub Agent from the local police authorities is non-mandatory for the Indian Agents, the Indian Agents must take due care to avoid appointing individuals/ entities as Sub Agents who have cases / proceedings initiated / pending against them by any law enforcing agencies.declaration regarding past criminal cases, cases initiated/ pending against the Sub Agent and/or its directors/ partners by any law enforcing agency, if anyPAN Card of the Sub Agents and its directors/ partnersPhotographs of the directors/ partners and the key persons of the Sub AgentThe above checks should be done on a regular basis, at least once in a year. The Indian Agents should obtain from the Sub Agents proper documentary evidence confirming the location of the Sub Agents in addition to personal visits to the site. The Indian Agents should discontinue agreements with Sub Agents who do not meet the criteria laid down above within three months from the date of this circular.5. Selection of CentersThe Indian Agents are free to select centers for operationalising the Scheme. However, this may be advised to the Reserve Bank.6. TrainingThe Indian Agents would be expected to impart training to the Sub Agents as regards operations and maintenance of records.7. Reporting, Audit and InspectionThe Indian Agents would be expected to put in place adequate arrangements for reporting of transactions by the Sub Agents to the Indian Agents (on a regular basis) in a simple format to be prescribed by them, say at monthly intervals.Regular spot audits of all locations of Sub Agents, at least on a monthly basis, should be conducted by Indian Agents. Such audits should involve a dedicated team and 'mystery customer'(Individuals acting as potential customers to experience and measure the extent up to which people and process perform as they should) concept should be used to test the compliance carried out by Sub Agents. As mentioned above, a system of inspection of the books of the Sub Agents should be put in place. The purpose of such inspection, which should be done at least once a year, would be to ensure that the money transfer business is being carried out by the Sub Agents in conformity with the terms of agreement/prevailing RBI guidelines and that necessary records are being maintained by the Sub Agents.Note:- As of now, the Indian Agents are fully responsible for the activities of their Sub Agents. While the Indian Agents will be encouraged to act as self-regulated entities, the onus of ensuring the conduct of activities of the Sub Agents in the prescribed manner will lie solely on the Indian Agents concerned and Reserve Bank of India can in no way be held responsible for the activities of the Sub Agents. Each Indian Agent would be required to conduct due diligence before appointing a Sub Agent and any irregularity observed could render the Indian Agent’s permission liable for cancellation.SECTION IVGuidelines for renewal of permission(authorization) of existing Indian Agents:1. Necessary permission to Indian Agents will be issued initially for a period of one year, which may be renewed for one to three years at a time on the basis of fulfilment of all conditions and other directions/ instructions issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time by Indian Agents.2. The applicant should be an Authorised Dealer Category-I bank or an Authorised Dealer Category-II or a Full Fledged Money Changer (FFMC), as defined in the A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 25 [A.P. (FL Series) Circular No. 02] dated March 6, 2006, or a Scheduled Commercial Bank or the Department of Posts.3. The Indian Agent should have minimum Net Owned Funds of Rs.50 lakh.4. Application for renewal of permission should be submitted to the Regional Office concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Indian Agent falls along-with the documents pertaining to the Overseas Principal as detailed in Section II above and the following documents:A declaration to the effect that no proceedings have been initiated by / are pending with the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) / Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or any other law enforcing authorities, against the Indian Agent or its directors and that no criminal cases are initiated / pending against the Indian Agent or its directors.A write up on the KYC / AML / CFT, risk management and internal control policy framework, put in place by the Indian Agent.Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the last two financial years of the Indian Agent, if available or a copy of the latest audited accounts, with a certificate from statutory auditors regarding the position of the Net Owned Funds as on the date of application.Confidential Reports from at least two of the bankers of the Indian Agent in sealed cover.Details of sister/ associated concerns of the Indian Agent functioning in the financial sector.A certified copy of the board resolution for renewal of permission.Note :- An application for the renewal of permission under MTSS shall be made not later than one month, or such other period as the Reserve Bank may prescribe, before the expiry of the permission. Where an entity submits an application for the renewal of its MTSS permission, the permission shall continue in force until the date on which the permission is renewed or the application for renewal of permission is rejected, as the case may be. No application for renewal of MTSS permission shall be made after the expiry of the permission.SECTION VInspection of Indian AgentsInspections of the Indian Agents may be conducted by the Reserve Bank under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the FEMA, 1999.SECTION VIKYC/ AML/ CFT Guidelines for the Indian AgentsDetailed instructions on Know Your Customer (KYC) norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) for Indian Agents under MTSS in respect of cross-border inward remittance activities, in the context of the FATF Recommendations on Anti Money Laundering standards and on Combating the Financing of Terrorism have been prescribed (Annex-II).SECTION VIIGeneral InstructionsAll Overseas Principals are required to submit their annual audited balance sheet along with a certificate on Net Worth from their Statutory Auditors to the Central Office of the Foreign Exchange Department and the Department of Payment and Settlement Systems of the Reserve Bank. Similarly, all Indian Agents are required to submit their annual audited balance sheet along with a certificate from their Statutory Auditors on Net Owned Funds to the Regional offices concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank. As the Overseas Principals and the Indian Agents are expected to maintain minimum Net Worth and Net Owned Funds respectively on an ongoing basis, they are required to bring it to the notice of the Reserve Bank immediately along with a detailed plan of restoring the Net Worth/ Net Owned Funds to the minimum required level, if there is any reduction in their Net Worth/ Net Owned Funds below the minimum level.PART-BReports / Statements1. A quarterly statement of the quantum of remittances received, as per the enclosed format (Annex-IV) should be furnished by the Indian Agents to the Regional Offices (ROs) concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department (FED) of the Reserve Bank, under whose jurisdiction their registered offices fall and Foreign Exchange Department, Forex Markets Division, Central Office, Amar Building, Fort, Mumbai-400001 within 15 days from the close of the quarter to which it relates.2. List of their additional locations should be furnished by the Indian Agents to the ROs concerned of the FED of the Reserve Bank, under whose jurisdiction their registered offices fall, on quarterly basis within 15 days from the close of the quarter to which it relates.3. Indian Agents should forward the list of their Sub Agents, Overseas Principal-Indian Agent wise along with the addresses of all the locations of their Sub Agents in excel format in soft form by emailing the same. Indian Agents should e-mail in excel format in soft form and to the concerned FED Regional Office, full updated list (names and addresses of all the locations) of the Sub Agents, whenever they appoint/ remove any Sub Agent. Indian Agents should visit the RBI website and verify the list of Sub Agents on regular intervals and any aberration to the list observed may immediately be brought to the notice of the concerned FED ROs and FED Central Office (CO). Further, Indian Agents should confirm the veracity on quarterly basis of the list placed on RBI wesbite to FED CO either in form of a letter or by e-mail within 15 days of the end of a quarter.3. A half-yearly statement of the collateral held as at the end of June and December every year, as per the enclosed format (Annex-V) should be furnished by the Indian Agents to the ROs concerned of the FED of the Reserve Bank, under whose jurisdiction their registered offices fall and Foreign Exchange Department, Forex Markets Division, Central Office, Amar Building, Fort, Mumbai-400001 within 15 days from the close of the half-year to which it relates.Annex-IIKYC/ AML/ CFT Guidelines for Indian AgentsSECTION-IKnow Your Customer (KYC) norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of Authorised Persons (Indian Agents) under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 - Cross Border Inward Remittance under Money Transfer Service Scheme1. IntroductionThe offence of Money Laundering has been defined in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) as "whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering". Money Laundering can be called a process by which money or other assets obtained as proceeds of crime are exchanged for "clean money" or other assets with no obvious link to their criminal origins.2. The objectiveThe objective of prescribing KYC/AML/CFT guidelines is to prevent the system of cross border inward money transfer into India from all over the world under the MTSS from being used, intentionally or unintentionally, by criminal elements for money laundering or terrorist financing activities. KYC procedures also enable Authorised Persons, who are Indian Agents under MTSS [referred as APs (Indian Agents) hereinafter] to know/understand their customers and their financial dealings better, which in turn help them manage their risks prudently.3. Definition of CustomerFor the purpose of KYC policy, a ‘Customer’ is defined as :a person who receives occasional/ regular cross border inward remittances under MTSS;one on whose behalf a cross border inward remittance under MTSS is received (i.e., the beneficial owner)[In view of Government of India Notification dated February 12, 2010 - Rule 9, sub-rule (1A) of PML Rules - 'Beneficial Owner' means the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a client and or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted, and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person].4. Guidelines4.1 GeneralAPs (Indian Agents) should keep in mind that the information collected from the customer while making payment of cross border inward remittances is to be treated as confidential and details thereof are not to be divulged for cross selling or any other like purposes. APs (Indian Agents) should, therefore, ensure that information sought from the customer is relevant to the perceived risk, is not intrusive, and is in conformity with the guidelines issued in this regard. Any other information from the customer, wherever necessary, should be sought separately with his/her consent.4.2 KYC PolicyAPs (Indian Agents) should frame their KYC policies incorporating the following four key elements:Customer Acceptance Policy;Customer Identification Procedures;Monitoring of Transactions; andRisk Management.4.3 Customer Acceptance Policy (CAP)a) Every AP (Indian Agent) should develop a clear Customer Acceptance Policy laying down explicit criteria for acceptance of customers. The Customer Acceptance Policy must ensure that explicit guidelines are in place on the following aspects of customer relationship in the AP (Indian Agent).No remittance is received in anonymous or fictitious/ benami name(s). [APs (Indian Agents) should not allow any transaction in any anonymous or fictitious name (s) or on behalf of other persons whose identity has not been disclosed or cannot be verified in view of Government of India Notification dated June 16, 2010 Rule 9, sub-rule (1C)].Parameters of risk perception are clearly defined in terms of the nature of business activity, location of customer and his clients, mode of payments, volume of turnover, social and financial status, etc. to enable categorisation of customers into low, medium and high risk (APs may choose any suitable nomenclature, viz., level I, level II and level III). Customers requiring very high level of monitoring, e.g., Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) may, if considered necessary, be categorised even higher.Documentation requirements and other information to be collected in respect of different categories of customers depending on perceived risk and keeping in mind the requirements of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records of the Nature and Value of Transactions, the Procedure and Manner of Maintaining and Time for Furnishing Information and Verification and Maintenance of Records of the Identity of the Clients of the Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and Intermediaries) Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time, as well as instructions / guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank, from time to time.Not to make payment of any remittance where the AP (Indian Agent) is unable to apply appropriate customer due diligence measures, i.e., AP (Indian Agent) is unable to verify the identity and /or obtain documents required as per the risk categorisation due to non-cooperation of the customer or non reliability of the data/information furnished to the AP (Indian Agent). It is, however, necessary to have suitable built in safeguards to avoid harassment of the customer. In the circumstances when an AP (Indian Agent) believes that it would no longer be satisfied that it knows the true identity of the customer, the AP (Indian Agent) should file an STR with FIU-IND.Circumstances, in which a customer is permitted to act on behalf of another person/entity, should be clearly spelt out, the beneficial owner should be identified and all reasonable steps should be taken to verify his identity.b) APs (Indian Agents) should prepare a profile for each new customer, where regular cross-border inward remittances are/ expected to be received, based on risk categorisation. The customer profile may contain information relating to customer’s identity, social / financial status, etc. The nature and extent of due diligence will depend on the risk perceived by the AP (Indian Agent). However, while preparing customer profile, APs (Indian Agents) should take care to seek only such information from the customer, which is relevant to the risk category and is not intrusive. The customer profile is a confidential document and details contained therein should not be divulged for cross selling or any other purposes.c) For the purpose of risk categorisation, individuals (other than High Net Worth) and entities whose identities and sources of wealth can be easily identified and transactions by whom by and large conform to the known profile, may be categorised as low risk. Customers that are likely to pose a higher than average risk should be categorised as medium or high risk depending on customer's background, nature and location of activity, country of origin, sources of funds and his client profile, etc. APs(Indian Agents) should apply enhanced due diligence measures based on the risk assessment, thereby requiring intensive ‘due diligence’ for higher risk customers, especially those for whom the sources of funds are not clear. Examples of customers requiring enhanced due diligence include (a) non­resident customers; (b) customers from countries that do not or insufficiently apply the FATF standards; (c) high net worth individuals; (d) politically exposed persons (PEPs); (e) non-face to face customers; and (f) those with dubious reputation as per public information available, etc.d) It is important to bear in mind that the adoption of customer acceptance policy and its implementation should not become too restrictive and must not result in denial of cross border inward remittance facilities to general public.e) With a view to preventing the system of cross border inward money transfer into India from all over the world under the MTSS from being used, intentionally or unintentionally, by criminal elements for money laundering or terrorist financing activities, whenever there is suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing or when other factors give rise to a belief that the customer does not, in fact, pose a low risk, APs (Indian Agents) should carry out full scale customer due diligence (CDD) before making payment of any remittance.4.4 Customer Identification Procedure (CIP)a) The policy approved by the Board of APs (Indian Agents) should clearly spell out the Customer Identification Procedure while making payment to a beneficiary or when the AP has a doubt about the authenticity/veracity or the adequacy of the previously obtained customer identification data. Customer identification means identifying the customer and verifying his/her identity by using reliable, independent source documents, data or information. APs (Indian Agents) need to obtain sufficient information necessary to establish, to their satisfaction, the identity of each new customer, whether regular or occasional. Being satisfied means that the AP must be able to satisfy the competent authorities that due diligence was observed based on the risk profile of the customer in compliance with the extant guidelines in place. Such risk based approach is considered necessary to avoid disproportionate cost to APs (Indian Agents) and a burdensome regime for the customers. The APs (Indian Agents) should obtain sufficient identification data to verify the identity of the customer and his address/location. For customers that are natural persons, the APs (Indian Agents) should obtain sufficient identification document /s to verify the identity of the customer and his address/location. For customers that are legal persons, the AP (Indian Agent) should (i) verify the legal status of the legal person through proper and relevant documents; (ii) verify that any person purporting to act on behalf of the legal person is so authorised and identify and verify the identity of that person; and (iii) understand the ownership and control structure of the customer and determine who are the natural persons who ultimately control the legal person. Customer identification requirements in respect of a few typical cases, especially, legal persons requiring an extra element of caution are given in paragraph 4.5 below for guidance of APs (Indian Agents). APs (Indian Agents) may, however, frame their own internal guidelines based on their experience of dealing with such persons, their normal prudence and the legal requirements as per established practices. If the AP (Indian Agent) decides to undertake such transactions in terms of the Customer Acceptance Policy, the AP (Indian Agent) should take reasonable measures to identify the beneficial owner(s) and verify his/her/their identity in a manner so that it is satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner(s) is/are [in view of Government of India Notification dated June 16, 2010 - Rule 9 sub-rule (1A) of PML Rules].Note: Rule 9(1A) of Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005 requires that every AP (Indian Agent) under MTSS shall identify the beneficial owner and take all reasonable steps to verify his identity. The term "beneficial owner" has been defined as the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a client and/or the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted, and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person. Government of India has since examined the issue and has specified the procedure for determination of Beneficial Ownership. The procedure as advised by the Government of India is as under:A. Where the client is a person other than an individual or trust, the AP (Indian Agents) shall identify the beneficial owners of the client and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of such persons, through the following information:The identity of the natural person, who, whether acting alone or together, or through one or more juridical person, exercises control through ownership or who ultimately has a controlling ownership interest.Explanation: Controlling ownership interest means ownership of/entitlement to more than 25 percent of shares or capital or profits of the juridical person, where the juridical person is a company; ownership of/entitlement to more than 15% of the capital or profits of the juridical person where the juridical person is a partnership; or, ownership of/entitlement to more than 15% of the property or capital or profits of the juridical person where the juridical person is an unincorporated association or body of individuals.In cases where there exists doubt under (i) as to whether the person with the controlling ownership interest is the beneficial owner or where no natural person exerts control through ownership interests, the identity of the natural person exercising control over the juridical person through other means.Explanation: Control through other means can be exercised through voting rights, agreement, arrangements, etc.Where no natural person is identified under (i) or (ii) above, the identity of the relevant natural person who holds the position of senior managing official.B. Where the client is a trust, the AP (Indian Agent) shall identify the beneficial owners of the client and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of such persons, through the identity of the settler of the trust, the trustee, the protector, the beneficiaries with 15% or more interest in the trust and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust through a chain of control or ownership.C. Where the client or the owner of the controlling interest is a company listed on a stock exchange, or is a majority-owned subsidiary of such a company, it is not necessary to identify and verify the identity of any shareholder or beneficial owner of such companies.b) Some close relatives, e.g., wife, son, daughter and parents, etc., who live with their husband, father / mother and son / daughter, as the case may be, may find it difficult to undertake transactions with APs (Indian Agents) as the utility bills required for address verification are not in their name. It is clarified, that in such cases, APs (Indian Agents) can obtain an identity document and a utility bill of the relative with whom the prospective customer is living along with a declaration from the relative that the said person (prospective customer) wanting to undertake a transaction is a relative and is staying with him/her. APs (Indian Agents) can use any supplementary evidence such as a letter received through post for further verification of the address. While issuing operational instructions to the branches on the subject, APs (Indian Agents) should keep in mind the spirit of instructions issued by the Reserve Bank and avoid undue hardships to individuals who are, otherwise, classified as low risk customers.c) APs (Indian Agents) should introduce a system of periodical updation of customer identification data, if there is a continuing relationship.d) An indicative list of the type of documents / information that may be relied upon for customer identification is given in SECTION-II. It is clarified that permanent correct address, as referred to in SECTION-II means the address at which a person usually resides and can be taken as the address as mentioned in a utility bill or any other document accepted by the AP for verification of the address of the customer. When there are suspicions of money laundering or financing of the activities relating to terrorism or where there are doubts about the adequacy or veracity of previously obtained customer identification data, APs (Indian Agents) should review the due diligence measures including verifying again the identity of the client and obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, as the case may be. [In view of Government of India Notification dated June 16, 2010- Rule 9 sub-rule (1D) of PML Rules].e) Payment to Beneficiariesi) For payment to beneficiaries, the identification documents, as mentioned at SECTION-II, should be verified and a copy retained. The copy of identification documents obtained should contain current and legible photograph of beneficiaries. This shall continue for a period of next six months from the date of this circular, subject to submission of a copy of the identifications documents during every payment. Further, in the event of a beneficiary being discovered to have received funds on the basis of a photo ID which did not sport his/ her photograph, action would also be initiated against the Agent/ Sub Agent. Thereafter, in addition to this, the identification requirements for cash payment to beneficiary shall also include biometric identification of the beneficiary. This stipulation will ultimately be linked to UID when it is fully implemented.ii) A cap of US $ 2500 has been placed on individual remittances under the scheme. Amounts up to Rs.50,000 may be paid in cash. Any amount exceeding this limit shall be paid only by means of cheque/D.D. /P.O., etc., or credited directly to the beneficiary's bank account. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the beneficiary is a foreign tourist, higher amounts may be disbursed in cash. Only 30 remittances can be received by a single individual during a calendar year.4.5 Customer Identification Requirements – Transactions by Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) - Indicative GuidelinesPolitically exposed persons are individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions in a foreign country, e.g., Heads of States or of Governments, senior politicians, senior government/judicial/military officers, senior executives of state-owned corporations, important political party officials, etc. APs (Indian Agents) should gather sufficient information on any person/customer of this category intending to undertake a transaction and check all the information available on the person in the public domain. APs (Indian Agents) should verify the identity of the person and seek information about the source /s of wealth and source /s of funds before accepting the PEP as a customer. The decision to undertake a transaction with a PEP should be taken at a senior level which should be clearly spelt out in the Customer Acceptance Policy. APs (Indian Agents) should also subject such transactions to enhanced monitoring on an ongoing basis. The above norms may also be applied to transactions with the family members or close relatives of PEPs. The above norms may also be applied to customers who become PEPs subsequent to establishment of the business relationship. These instructions are also applicable to transactions where a PEP is the ultimate beneficial owner. Further, in regard to transactions in case of PEPs, it is reiterated that APs (Indian Agents) should have appropriate ongoing risk management procedures for identifying and applying enhanced CDD to PEPs, customers who are family members or close relatives of PEPs and transactions of which a PEP is the ultimate beneficial owner.4.6 Monitoring of TransactionsOngoing monitoring is an essential element of effective KYC procedures. APs (Indian Agents) can effectively control and reduce their risk only if they have an understanding of the normal and reasonable receipt of remittances of the beneficiary so that they have the means of identifying receipts that fall outside the regular pattern of activity. However, the extent of monitoring will depend on the risk sensitivity of the remittance. APs (Indian Agents) should pay special attention to all complex, unusually large receipts and all unusual patterns which have no apparent economic or visible lawful purpose. APs (Indian Agents) may prescribe threshold limits for a particular category of receipts and pay particular attention to the receipts which exceed these limits. High-risk receipts have to be subjected to intense monitoring.Every AP (Indian Agent) should set key indicators for such receipts, taking note of the background of the customer, such as the country of origin, sources of funds, the type of transactions involved and other risk factors. APs (Indian Agents) should put in place a system of periodical review of risk categorization of customers and the need for applying enhanced due diligence measures. Such review of risk categorisation of customers should be carried out periodically.APs (Indian Agents) should exercise ongoing due diligence with respect to the business relationship with every client and closely examine the transactions in order to ensure that they are consistent with their knowledge of the client, his business and risk profile and where necessary, the source of funds [In view of Government of India Notification dated June 16, 2010 -Rule 9, sub-rule (1B)]APs (Indian Agents) should examine the background and purpose of transactions with persons (including legal persons and other financial institutions) from jurisdictions included in the FATF Statements and countries that do not or insufficiently apply the FATF Recommendations. Further, if the transactions have no apparent economic or visible lawful purpose, the background and purpose of such transactions should, as far as possible, be examined and written findings together with all the documents should be retained and made available to the Reserve Bank/ other relevant authorities, on request.4.7 Attempted transactionsWhere the AP (Indian Agent) is unable to apply appropriate KYC measures due to non-furnishing of information and /or non-cooperation by the customer, the AP should not undertake the transaction. Under these circumstances, APs should make a suspicious transactions report to FIU-IND in relation to the customer, even if the transaction is not put through.4.8 Risk Managementa) The Board of Directors of the AP (Indian Agent) should ensure that an effective KYC programme is put in place by establishing appropriate procedures and ensuring effective implementation. It should cover proper management oversight, systems and controls, segregation of duties, training and other related matters. Responsibility should be explicitly allocated within the AP (Indian Agent) for ensuring that the APs’ policies and procedures are implemented effectively. APs (Indian Agents) should, in consultation with their Boards, devise procedures for creating risk profiles of their existing and new customers and apply various anti money laundering measures keeping in view the risks involved in a transaction.b) APs’ (Indian Agents) internal audit and compliance functions have an important role in evaluating and ensuring adherence to the KYC policies and procedures. As a general rule, the compliance function should provide an independent evaluation of the AP’s (Indian Agent’s) own policies and procedures, including legal and regulatory requirements. APs (Indian Agents) should ensure that their audit machinery is staffed adequately with individuals who are well-versed in such policies and procedures. The concurrent auditors should check all cross border inward remittance transactions under MTSS to verify that they have been undertaken in compliance with the anti-money laundering guidelines and have been reported whenever required to the concerned authorities. Compliance on the lapses, if any, recorded by the concurrent auditors should be put up to the Board. A certificate from the Statutory Auditors on the compliance with KYC / AML / CFT guidelines should be obtained at the time of preparation of the Annual Report and kept on record.4.9 Introduction of New TechnologiesAPs (Indian Agents) should pay special attention to any money laundering threats that may arise from new or developing technologies including transactions through internet that might favour anonymity and take measures, to prevent their use for money laundering purposes and financing of terrorism activities.4.10 Combating Financing of Terrorisma)In terms of PML Rules, suspicious transaction should include inter alia transactions which give rise to a reasonable ground of suspicion that these may involve the proceeds of an offence mentioned in the Schedule to the PMLA, regardless of the value involved. APs (Indian Agents) should, therefore, develop suitable mechanism through appropriate policy framework for enhanced monitoring of transactions suspected of having terrorist links and swift identification of the transactions and making suitable reports to the FIU-IND on priority.b) APs (Indian Agents) are advised to take into account risks arising from the deficiencies in AML/CFT regime of certain jurisdictions, viz., Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Bolivia, Cuba, Ethiopia, Kenya, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey and Nigeria, as identified in FATF Statement (www.fatf-gafi.org) issued from time to time, while dealing with individuals from these jurisdictions. In addition to FATF Statements circulated by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, (latest as on February 14, 2013, circulated vide the A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 71 dated January 10, 2013), APs (Indian Agents) should also consider using publicly available information for identifying countries, which do not or insufficiently apply the FATF Recommendations. All APs (Indian Agents) are accordingly advised to take into account risks arising from the deficiencies in AML/CFT regime of these countries, while entering into business relationships and transactions with persons (including legal persons and other financial institutions) from or in these countries/ jurisdictions and give special attention to these cases.4.11 Principal Officera) APs (Indian Agents) should appoint a senior management officer to be designated as Principal Officer. Principal Officer shall be located at the head/corporate office of the AP and shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting of all transactions and sharing of information as required under the law. The role and responsibilities of the Principal Officer should include overseeing and ensuring overall compliance with regulatory guidelines on KYC/ AML/ CFT issued from time to time and obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, rules and regulations made there under, as amended from time to time.The Principal Officer should also be responsible for developing appropriate compliance management arrangements across the full range of AML/CFT areas (e.g. CDD, record keeping, etc.). He will maintain close liaison with enforcement agencies, APs (Indian Agents) and any other institution which are involved in the fight against money laundering and combating financing of terrorism. To enable the Principal Officer to discharge his responsibilities, it is advised that the Principal Officer and other appropriate staff should have timely access to customer identification data and other CDD information, transaction records and other relevant information. Further, APs (Indian Agents) should ensure that the Principal Officer is able to act independently and report directly to the senior management or to the Board of Directors.b) The Principal Officer will be responsible for timely submission of CTR and STR to the FIU-IND.4.12 Maintenance of records of transactions/Information to be preserved/ Maintenance and preservation of records/ Cash and Suspicious Transactions Reporting to Financial Intelligence Unit- India (FIU-IND)Section 12 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, casts certain obligations on the APs (Indian Agents) in regard to preservation and reporting of transaction information. APs (Indian Agents) are, therefore, advised to go through the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 and the Rules notified there under and take all steps considered necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 12 of the Act ibid.(i) Maintenance of records of transactionsAPs (Indian Agents) should introduce a system of maintaining proper record of transactions prescribed under Rule 3, as mentioned below:all cash transactions of the value of more than Rupees ten lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency;all series of cash transactions integrally connected to each other which have been valued below Rupees ten lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency where such series of transactions have taken place within a month and the aggregate value of such transactions exceeds Rupees ten lakh;all transactions involving receipts by non-profit organisations of value more than Rupees ten lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency [In view of Government of India Notification dated November 12, 2009 - Rule 3, sub-rule (1) clause (BA) of PML Rules];all cash transactions where forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes have been used as genuine and where any forgery of a valuable security or a document has taken place facilitating the transaction; andAll suspicious transactions whether or not made in cash and by way of as mentioned in the Rules.(ii) Information to be preservedAPs (Indian Agents) are required to maintain all necessary information in respect of transactions referred to in Rule 3 to permit reconstruction of individual transactions including the following information:the nature of the transaction;the amount of the transaction and the currency in which it was denominated;the date on which the transaction was conducted; andthe parties to the transaction.(iii) Maintenance and Preservation of Recordsa) APs (Indian Agents) are required to maintain the records containing information of all transactions including the records of transactions detailed in Rule 3 above. APs (Indian Agents) should take appropriate steps to evolve a system for proper maintenance and preservation of transaction information in a manner that allows data to be retrieved easily and quickly whenever required or when requested by the competent authorities. Further, APs (Indian Agents) should maintain for at least ten years from the date of transaction between the AP and the client, all necessary records of transactions, both with residents and non-residents, which will permit reconstruction of individual transactions (including the amounts and types of currency involved, if any) so as to provide, if necessary, evidence for prosecution of persons involved in criminal activity.b) APs (Indian Agents) should ensure that records pertaining to the identification of the customer and his address (e.g. copies of documents like passport, driving license, PAN card, voter identity card issued by the Election Commission, utility bills, etc.) obtained while undertaking the transaction, are properly preserved for at least ten years from the date of cessation of the business relationship. The identification records and transaction data should be made available to the competent authorities upon request.c) In paragraph 4.6 of this Circular, APs (Indian Agents) have been advised to pay special attention to all complex, unusual large transactions and all unusual patterns of transactions, which have no apparent economic or visible lawful purpose. It is further clarified that the background including all documents/office records / memoranda pertaining to such transactions and purpose thereof should, as far as possible, be examined and the findings at branch as well as Principal Officer’s level should be properly recorded. Such records and related documents should be made available to help auditors in their day-to-day work relating to scrutiny of transactions and also to Reserve Bank/other relevant authorities. These records are required to be preserved for ten years as is required under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 and Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records of the Nature and Value of Transactions, the Procedure and Manner of Maintaining and Time for Furnishing Information and Verification and Maintenance of Records of the Identity of the Clients of the Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and Intermediaries) Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time.(iv) Reporting to Financial Intelligence Unit – Indiaa) In terms of the PML rules, APs (Indian Agents) are required to report information relating to cash and suspicious transactions to the Director, Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND) in respect of transactions referred to in Rule 3 at the following address:The Director,Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND),6th Floor, Hotel Samrat,Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.Website - http://fiuindia.gov.in/b) APs (Indian Agents) should carefully go through all the reporting formats. There are altogether four reporting formats, as detailed in SECTION-III, viz. i) Cash Transactions Report (CTR); ii) Electronic File Structure-CTR; iii) Suspicious Transactions Report (STR); and iv) Electronic File Structure-STR. The reporting formats contain detailed guidelines on the compilation and manner/procedure of submission of the reports to FIU-IND. It would be necessary for APs (Indian Agents) to initiate urgent steps to ensure electronic filing of all types of reports to FIU-IND. The related hardware and technical requirement for preparing reports in an electronic format, the related data files and data structures thereof are furnished in the instructions part of the formats concerned.c) In terms of instructions contained in paragraph 4.3(b) of this Circular, APs (Indian Agents) are required to prepare a profile for each customer based on risk categorisation. Further, vide paragraph 4.6, the need for periodical review of risk categorisation has been emphasized. It is, therefore, reiterated that APs (Indian Agents), as a part of transaction monitoring mechanism, are required to put in place an appropriate software application to throw alerts when the transactions are inconsistent with risk categorization and updated profile of customers. It is needless to add that a robust software throwing alerts is essential for effective identification and reporting of suspicious transactions.4.13 Cash and Suspicious Transaction ReportsA) Cash Transaction Report (CTR)While detailed instructions for filing all types of reports are given in the instructions part of the related formats, APs (Indian Agents) should scrupulously adhere to the following:i) The Cash Transaction Report (CTR) for each month should be submitted to the FIU‑IND by 15th of the succeeding month. Cash transaction reporting by branches to their controlling offices should, therefore, invariably be submitted on a monthly basis and APs (Indian Agents) should ensure to submit CTR for every month to FIU-IND within the prescribed time schedule.ii) While filing CTR, details of individual transactions below Rs.50,000 need not be furnished.iii) CTR should contain only the transactions carried out by the AP on behalf of their customers excluding transactions between the internal accounts of the APiv) A cash transaction report for the AP as a whole should be compiled by the Principal Officer of the AP every month in physical form as per the format specified. The report should be signed by the Principal Officer and submitted to the FIU-IND.v) In case of Cash Transaction Reports (CTR) compiled centrally by APs (Indian Agents) for the branches at their central data centre level, APs (Indian Agents) may generate centralised Cash Transaction Reports (CTR) in respect of branches under central computerized environment at one point for onward transmission to FIU-IND, provided:The CTR is generated in the format prescribed by Reserve Bank in Para 4.12(iv)(b) of this Circular.A copy of the monthly CTR submitted on its behalf to the FIU-IND is available at the branch concerned for production to auditors/inspectors, when asked for.The instruction on ‘Maintenance of records of transactions’, ‘Information to be preserved’ and ‘Maintenance and Preservation of records’ as contained above in this circular at Para 4.12 (i), (ii) and (iii) respectively are scrupulously followed by the branch.However, in respect of branches not under central computerized environment, the monthly CTR should be compiled and forwarded by the branch to the Principal Officer for onward transmission to the FIU-IND.B) Suspicious Transaction Reports (STR)i) While determining suspicious transactions, APs (Indian Agents) should be guided by definition of suspicious transaction contained in PML Rules, as amended from time to time.ii) It is likely that in some cases, transactions are abandoned/ aborted by customers on being asked to give some details or to provide documents. It is clarified that APs (Indian Agents) should report all such attempted transactions in STRs, even if not completed by customers, irrespective of the amount of the transaction.iii) APs (Indian Agents) should make STRs if they have reasonable ground to believe that the transaction, including an attempted transaction, involves proceeds of crime generally irrespective of the amount of transaction and/or the threshold limit envisaged for predicate offences in part B of Schedule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002, as amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009.iv) The Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) should be furnished within 7 days of arriving at a conclusion that any transaction, including an attempted transaction, whether cash or non-cash, or a series of transactions integrally connected are of suspicious nature. The Principal Officer should record his reasons for treating any transaction or a series of transactions as suspicious. It should be ensured that there is no undue delay in arriving at such a conclusion once a suspicious transaction report is received from a branch or any other office. Such report should be made available to the competent authorities on request.v) In the context of creating KYC/ AML awareness among the staff and for generating alerts for suspicious transactions, APs (Indian Agents) may consider the following indicative list of suspicious activities.Some possible suspicious activity indicators are given below:Customer is reluctant to provide details / documents on frivolous grounds.The transaction is undertaken by one or more intermediaries to protect the identity of the beneficiary or hide their involvement.Large amount of remittances.Size and frequency of transactions is high considering the normal business of the customer.The above list is only indicative and not exhaustive.vi) APs (Indian Agents) should not put any restrictions on payment to beneficiaries where an STR has been made. Moreover, it should be ensured that employees of APs shall keep the fact of furnishing such information as strictly confidential and there is no tipping off to the customer at any level.4.14 Customer Education/Employees’ Training/Employees’ Hiringa) Customer EducationImplementation of KYC procedures requires APs (Indian Agents) to demand certain information from customers which may be of personal nature or which has hitherto never been called for. This can sometimes lead to a lot of questioning by the customer as to the motive and purpose of collecting such information. There is, therefore, a need for APs (Indian Agents) to prepare specific literature/ pamphlets, etc., so as to educate the customer of the objectives of the KYC programme. The front desk staff needs to be specially trained to handle such situations while dealing with customers.b) Employees’ TrainingAPs (Indian Agents) must have an ongoing employee training programme so that the members of the staff are adequately trained to be aware of the policies and procedures relating to prevention of money laundering, provisions of the PMLA and the need to monitor all transactions to ensure that no suspicious activity is being undertaken under the guise of remittances. Training requirements should have different focuses for frontline staff, compliance staff and staff dealing with new customers. It is crucial that all those concerned fully understand the rationale behind the KYC policies and implement them consistently. The steps to be taken when the staff come across any suspicious transactions (such as asking questions about the source of funds, checking the identification documents carefully, reporting immediately to the Principal Officer, etc.) should be carefully formulated by the APs (Indian Agents) and suitable procedure laid down. The APs (Indian Agents) should have an ongoing training programme for consistent implementation of the AML measures.c) Hiring of EmployeesIt may be appreciated that KYC norms/AML standards/CFT measures have been prescribed to ensure that criminals are not allowed to misuse the system of money transfer under MTSS. It would, therefore, be necessary that adequate screening mechanism is put in place by APs (Indian Agents) as an integral part of their recruitment/hiring process of personnel to ensure high standards.Note:- (i) The Government of India had constituted a National Money Laundering / Financing of Terror Risk Assessment Committee to assess money laundering and terror financing risks, a national AML/CFT strategy and institutional framework for AML/CFT in India. Assessment of risk of Money Laundering /Financing of Terrorism helps both the competent authorities and the regulated entities in taking necessary steps for combating ML / FT adopting a risk-based approach. This helps in judicious and efficient allocation of resources and makes the AML / CFT regime more robust. The Committee has made recommendations regarding adoption of a risk-based approach, assessment of risk and putting in place a system which would use that assessment to take steps to effectively counter ML / FT. The recommendations of the Committee have since been accepted by the Government of India and need to be implemented. Accordingly, APs (Indian Agents) should take steps to identify and assess their ML/TF risk for customers, countries and geographical areas as also for products/ services/ transactions/delivery channels, in addition to what has been prescribed in the paragraph 4 above. APs (Indian Agents) should have policies, controls and procedures, duly approved by their boards, in place to effectively manage and mitigate their risk adopting a risk-based approach as discussed above. As a corollary, APs (Indian Agents) would be required to adopt enhanced measures for products, services and customers with a medium or high risk rating. APs (Indian Agents) may design risk parameters according to their activities for risk based transaction monitoring, which will help them in their own risk assessment.(ii) The above KYC/ AML/ CFT Guidelines would also be applicable mutatis mutandis to all Sub Agents of the Indian Agents under MTSS and it will be the sole responsibility of the APs (Indian Agents) to ensure that their Sub Agents also adhere to these guidelines.Section -IICustomer Identification Procedure Features to be verified and documents that may be obtained from customersFeaturesDocuments- Legal name and any other names used(i) Passport (ii) PAN card (iii) Voter’s Identity Card (iv) Driving licence (v) Identity card (subject to the AP’s satisfaction) (vi) Letter from a recognized public authority or public servant verifying the identity and residence of the customer to the satisfaction of the AP(Indian Agent)- Correct permanent address(i) Telephone bill (ii) Bank account statement (iii) Letter from any recognized public authority (iv) Electricity bill (v) Ration card (vi) Letter from employer (subject to satisfaction of the AP).(any one of the documents, which provides customer information to the satisfaction of the AP (Indian Agent) will suffice).Note :- If the address on the document submitted for identity proof by the prospective customer is same as that declared by him/her, the document may be accepted as a valid proof of both identity and address. If the address indicated on the document submitted for identity proof differs from the current address declared by the customer, a separate proof of address should be obtained.Section-IIIList of various reports and their formatsCash Transaction Report (CTR)Electronic File Structure- CTRSuspicious Transaction Report (STR)Electronic File Structure-STRNote: FIU-IND have now advised that the 'go-live' date is October 20, 2012 and that Authorised Persons, who are Indian agents under MTSS may discontinue submission of reports in CD format after October 20, 2012, using only FINnet gateway for uploading of reports in the new XML reporting format. Any report in CD format received after October 20, 2012 will not be treated as a valid submission by FIU-IND.Annex-IIIFormat for Sub Agents of Indian Agents of MTSS1.Name of the Sub Agent2.Sub Agent Category (AD Cat-I bank/ AD Cat-II/ Other Scheduled Commercial Bank/ Full Fledged Money Changer/ Department of Posts/ Registered NBFC/ Others)3.Address of the registered/corporate/administrative office with telephone number/s, Fax number/s and e-mail id/s.4.Registered with5.Registration Number6.Details of Registration (papers to be attached as at Annex-IIIa)7.PAN Number (copy as at Annex-IIIa)8.Name/s of Banker/s and Bank Account Number/s (enclosures as at Annex-IIIa)9.Details (Name, Nationality, Residential address, Controlling interest in any other company, PAN Number) of each promoter with more than 10% equity holding10.Paid up capital in Rs. and Number of shares11.Accounts certified by which Chartered Accountant? Details (Enclosures as at Annex-IIIa)12.Whether prosecuted/ convicted for criminal/ economic offence? If yes, particulars thereof (Enclosures as at Annex-IIIa)13.Whether the Sub Agent is solvent as on date14.Details (Name, Designation, Nationality, Residential address, PAN No., Name/s of other company/ies in which the person has held any post, Details of equity shareholding in the company, if any) of Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Chief Executive Officer (Details as at Annex-IIIa)Note: With reference to point 9, ownership of the Sub Agent should be detailed up to the last layer of equity holding ending in mentioning the name of the individual/ entity that owns beneficial interest in the company.Date:Place:Signature of Chartered AccountantSignature of Managing DirectorAnnex-IIIa : List of Certified copies of Documents to be submittedCertificate of IncorporationMemorandum (up-to-date) and Articles of AssociationBoard resolution for conducting money transfer activities, submission of application and its contents including authorization of an official to make the application.Details of associates, group companies, etc.PAN Card/s of the Director/s.Bank Account details and sealed confidential reports from banks.A certificate from Chartered Accountant certifying Net Owned FundsBalance Sheet and P&L A/c statement for the last three years.Business plan for the next three years.Conduct certificate from the local police authorities.Declaration regarding past criminal cases, cases initiated/ pending against the company or its Directors by any law enforcing agencies.Photographs of the Directors and key persons.Information about the management.Shop and establishment certificate/ other municipal certificate.Annex-IVStatement showing details of quantum of remittances received through Money Transfer Service Scheme during the quarter ended __________________Name of the Indian Agent ______________________________________Name of the Overseas PrincipalTotal quantum of remittances received in US $INR equivalentNote: This statement is required to be submitted to the Regional Office concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank and Foreign Exchange Department, Forex Markets Division, Central Office, Amar Building, Fort, Mumbai-400001 within 15 days from the close of the quarter to which it relates.Annex-VStatement of Collateral kept by Indian AgentsName of the Indian Agent __________________________Name of the Overseas PrincipalTotal quantum of remittances received during the past 6 months in US $Amount of collateral held in US $Collateral kept in various forms (Foreign Currency Deposit/ Bank Guarantee)Last review of adequacy of collateral along with observationsNote: This statement as at the end of June and December every year is required to be submitted to the Regional Office concerned of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank and Foreign Exchange Department, Forex Markets Division, Central Office, Amar Building, Fort, Mumbai-400001 within 15 days from the close of the half year to