India

Enquire Allegations on HSBC and cancel its Licence

BeyondHeadlines News Desk

Amitabh Thakur and her wife Nutan have sent a representation to Enforcement Directorate and Revenue Department, Ministry of Finance requesting them for enquiry and necessary action as regards allegations made by Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan regarding black money and hawala transactions in assistance with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC).

Amitabh Thakur and Nutan Thakur said that many of the facts presented in the Press Note of IAC prima-facie seem to constitute the offence under section 3 of the Prevention Of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). Section 3 of PMLA is related with projecting any money generated through crime as untainted property while section 13 of FEMA is related with contravention of any provision of this Act. Under section 8 of PMLA, on receipt of a complaint, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3, he may initiate the proceedings under this Act. Similarly section 16 of FEMA is related with Appointment of Adjudicating Authority for offences under that Act.

Amitabh Thakur and her wife Nutan requested the Enforcement Directorate to take cognizance of their representation and initiate suitable action under PMLA and FEMA.

Amitabh Thakur also requested the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to enquire into the allegations against HSBC and to cancel its licence under section 22(4)of the Banking Regulations Act, I949 in case the allegations are found to be true.

Here is the full text of Letter to Enforcement Directorate:

To,
The Director,
Enforcement Directorate
6th Floor , Lok Nayak Bhawan
Khan Market,
New Delhi – 110 003

Subject- Enquiry and necessary action as regards allegations made by Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan of “India Against Corruption” regarding PMLA

Dear Sir,

1. We, petitioners No 1 and 2 introduce ourselves as under-

Petitioner No 1- Amitabh Thakur. son of Sri T N Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viran Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 Phone No- 094155-34526, email- [email protected], [email protected]   is an officer of the Indian Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Cadre and is also active as regards issues of transparent and accountable governance. He writes this letter in his personal capacity as a concerned citizen of this Nation

Petitioner No 2- Dr Nutan Thakur, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viran Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 Phone No- 094155-34525, email- [email protected],  is wife of petitioner No 1 and is a social activist and freelance journalist associated with transparency in Governance and Human Right issues.

2. That the two petitioners present a very serious matter associated with black money and hawala transactions in assistance with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC) which has come up in the allegations made by two prominent anti-corruption activists of India, Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan of “India Against Corruption”, A-119, First Floor, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh: 201010, Landline Number: 0120-4559701, 4559237, Telefax Number: 0120-2771017,Email: [email protected].

3. That Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan held a Press Conference inNew Delhidated 09/11/2012 where they made some very serious allegations against many persons and the HSBC Bank. They issued a Press note (being attached as Annexure No 1) titled “Is Government encouraging hawala?”

4. That this Press Note focused primarily on the issue of Black money

5. That among other things, they alleged that in July 2011, Indian Government received a list of roughly 700 people having bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva. The list contains bank balances of these people in 2006. They gave the names of the following persons who had black money stashed in Swiss Banks- Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambai – Rs 100 crores , Anil Dhirubhai Ambani – Rs 100 crores , Motech Software Private Ltd (Reliance Group company) – Rs 2,100 crores , Reliance Industries Ltd – Rs 500 crores , Sandeep Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Anu Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Kokila Dhirubhai Ambani – She has an account but there was no balance on that date , Naresh Kumar Goyal – Rs 80 crores , Burmans (3 family members) – Rs 25 crores , Yashovardhan Birla – no balance

6. That the Press Note talks of statements of three persons Shri Parminder Singh Kalra S/o Shri Avtar Singh Kalra, A-29, Friends Colony,New Delhi, Shri Praveen Sawhney S/o Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, 6,Link Road, Jungpura Extn, New Delhi  and Shri Vikram Dhirani S/o Shri V.K. Dhirani, C-229, Indl. Area, Bulandsahar Road, Ghaziabad, U.P.

7. That the statements by the three gentlemen reveal that through the assistance with HSBC and other banks, there is a brazen and open hawala racket inIndia. From their statements, it has been alleged that perhaps it is easier to open a Swiss bank account than it is to open an account in SBI, with the assistance of HSBC.

 8. That many of the facts Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan have presented in their Press Note prima-facie seem to constitute the offences under The Prevention Of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (Act 15 Of 2003) (An Act to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto)

 9. That section 2(a) defines “Adjudicating Authority” means an Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6;(e) “banking company” means a banking company or a co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies and includes any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act; (k) “Director” or “Additional Director” or “Joint Director” means a Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, as the case may be, appointed under sub-section (1) of section 49;(na) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Act conducted by the Director or by an authority authorised by the Central Government under this Act for the collection of evidence; (p) “money-laundering” has the meaning assigned to it in section 3; (u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;

 10. That section 3 says- “ Offence of money-laundering.– 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.

11. That section 4 says- “Punishment for money-laundering.– Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five lakh rupees: Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words “which may extend to seven years”, the words “which may extend to ten years” had been substituted.”

12. That section 5 is about Attachment of property involved in money-laundering and says-“ (1) Where the Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that— (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; (b) such person has been charged of having committed a scheduled offence; and (c) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding ninety days from the date of the order

13. That section 7 is related with Adjudicating Authorities, composition, powers, etc. Section 8(1) says- “The Central Government shall, by notification, appoint one or more Adjudicating Authorities to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred by or under this Act.

14.  That section 8 “Adjudication” says– (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3, it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which herelies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government:

15 That section 12 directs Banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records and section 19 is the Power to arrest

16. That the present case seems to be the most fit case for taking action under the various provisions of the PMLA by taking cognizance of the facts presented in the Press Note of Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan and by taking suitable further action

17. That hence the two petitioners, in our individual capacities, request you as the competent authority to take cognizance of this representation and the accompanied Annexure (Press Note by Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan) and to act according to the provisions under PMLA to adjudicate as regards the offence alleged to have been committed by the named persons in the Press Note of Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan so as to take appropriate actions against the various named persons (Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambai – Rs 100 crores , Anil Dhirubhai Ambani – Rs 100 crores , Motech Software Private Ltd (Reliance Group company) – Rs 2,100 crores , Reliance Industries Ltd – Rs 500 crores , Sandeep Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Anu Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Kokila Dhirubhai Ambani – She has an account but there was no balance on that date , Naresh Kumar Goyal – Rs 80 crores , Burmans (3 family members) – Rs 25 crores , Yashovardhan Birla – no balance) and other persons about whom it is alleged in this Press Note-“ In July 2011, Indian Government received a list of roughly 700 people having bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva. The list contains bank balances of these people in 2006” under the appropriate sections of PML Act, in case they are found guilty in this regard.

18. That with the above facts and circumstances, the two petitioners pray before you to take all possible necessary actions as per the provisions of law (under PMLA) to take suitable actions, in larger public and national interest. The petitioners shall always be willing to support in the investigation/enquiry to the best of their capabilities

Yours,

 1. Amitabh Thakur

2.Nutan Thakur

 Copy to-

1. The Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Principal Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India,New Delhi

Here is the full text of Letter to Governor, Reserve Bank of India:

To,
The Governor,
Reserve Bank of India
Plot No. 3, Sector 10,
H.H.Nirmaladevi Marg
Cbd, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400051

Subject- Enquiry and necessary action as regards allegations made by Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan of “India Against Corruption” against Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC)

Dear Sir,

1. We, petitioners No 1 and 2 introduce ourselves as under-

Petitioner No 1- Amitabh Thakur. son of Sri T N Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viran Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 Phone No- 094155-34526, email- [email protected], [email protected]   is an officer of the Indian Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Cadre and is also active as regards issues of transparent and accountable governance. He writes this letter in his personal capacity as a concerned citizen of this Nation
Petitioner No 2- Dr Nutan Thakur, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viran Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 Phone No- 094155-34525, email-
[email protected],  is wife of petitioner No 1 and is a social activist and freelance journalist associated with transparency in Governance and Human Right issues

2. That the two petitioners present a very serious matter associated with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC) which has come up in the allegations made by two prominent anti-corruption activists of India, Sri Arvind Kejriwal and Sri Prashant Bhushan of “India Against Corruption”, A-119, First Floor, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh: 201010, Landline Number: 0120-4559701, 4559237, Telefax Number: 0120-2771017,Email: [email protected].

3. That Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan held a Press Conference inNew Delhidated 09/11/2012 where they made some very serious allegations against the HSBC Bank. They issued a Press note (being attached as Annexure No 1) titled “Is Government encouraging hawala?”

4. That this Press Note focused primarily on the issue of Black money

5. That among other things, they alleged that in July 2011, Indian Government received a list of roughly 700 people having bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva. The list contains bank balances of these people in 2006. They gave the names of the following persons who had black money stashed in Swiss Banks- Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambai – Rs 100 crores , Anil Dhirubhai Ambani – Rs 100 crores , Motech Software Private Ltd (Reliance Group company) – Rs 2,100 crores , Reliance Industries Ltd – Rs 500 crores , Sandeep Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Anu Tandon – Rs 125 crores , Kokila Dhirubhai Ambani – She has an account but there was no balance on that date , Naresh Kumar Goyal – Rs 80 crores , Burmans (3 family members) – Rs 25 crores , Yashovardhan Birla – no balance

6. That the Press Note talks of statements of three persons Shri Parminder Singh Kalra S/o Shri Avtar Singh Kalra, A-29, Friends Colony,New Delhi, Shri Praveen Sawhney S/o Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, 6,Link Road, Jungpura Extn, New Delhi  and Shri Vikram Dhirani S/o Shri V.K. Dhirani, C-229, Indl. Area, Bulandsahar Road, Ghaziabad, U.P.

7. That the statements by the three gentlemen reveal that HSBC is openly and brazenly running a hawala racket inIndia. From their statements, it has been alleged that perhaps it is easier to open a Swiss bank account than it is to open an account in SBI, with the assistance of HSBC.

8. That this certainly seems to constitute the serious crime under FEMA and Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

9. That the above-mentioned three gentlemen admitted that they indulged in hawala activities. It also clearly shows that HSBC bank is openly indulging in hawala activities.

10. That Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan have alleged that in October 2011, a report was sent by Director of Investigations,Delhito Director General of Investigations,Delhiclearly stated that HSBC officials were indulging in hawala and also encouraging tax evasion inIndia. The report also said that HSBC, DubaiandGenevado not have a license from RBI to conduct banking operations inIndiaand their operations inIndiawere completely illegal and it is more than a year, yet no action has been taken against HSBC.

11. That it is well known that there is The Banking Regulations Act, I949 (ACT No.10 OF 1949) inIndiawhich is “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking companies”

12. That section 22 of this Act is related with Licensing of banking companies. Section 22(1) says- (1) Save as hereinafter provided, no company shall carry on banking business in India unless it holds a licence issued in that behalf by the Reserve Bank and any such licence may be issued subject of such conditions as the Reserve Bank may think fit to impose.”

13.  That section 22(3) requires that before granting any licence under this section, the Reserve Banking may require to be satisfied by an inspection of the books of the company or otherwise that the among others, the following conditions are fulfilled, namely : —(b) that the affairs of the company are not being, or are not likely to be, conducted in a manner deterimental to the interests of its present or future depositors;  (c) that the general character of the proposed management of the company will not be prejudicial to the public interest or the interest of its depositors;  (e) that the public interest will be served by the grant of a licence to the company to carry on banking business in India;  (g) any other condition, the fulfilment of which would, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank, be necessary to ensure that the carrying on of banking business in India by the company will not be prejudicial to the public interest or the interests of the depositors

14. That section 22(4) says that the Reserve Bank may cancel a licence granted to a banking company under this section — (i) if the company ceases to carry on banking business in India; or(ii) if the company at any time fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed upon it under sub-section (1); or (iii) if at any time, any of the conditions referred to in sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) is not fulfilled:

Provided that before cancelling a licence under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-section on the ground that the banking company has failed to comply with or has failed to fulfil any of the conditions referred to therein, the Reserve Bank, unless it is of opinion that the delay will be prejudicial to the interests of the company’s depositors or the public, shall grant to the company on such terms as it may specify, an opportunity of taking the necessary steps for complying with or fulfilling such condition.

15. That the present case prima-facie seems to be the most fit case for taking action under section 22(4) of the Banking regulations Act 1949

16. That hence the two petitioners request you as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India to take cognizance of this representation and the accompanied Annexure (Press Note by Sri Kejriwal and Sri Bhushan) to enquire into the matter immediately and to cancel the licence granted to Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. 52/60, M.G.Road, P.O.Box. 128, Mumbai-400 001 ([placed at Serial No 22 of the list of Financial Intermediaries Private-Foreign Banks granted licence, as per the RBI website page- http://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/English/Scripts/BanksInIndia.aspx#FB , in case the allegations as contained in the annexed Press Note are found to be true

17. That with the above facts and circumstances, the two petitioners pray before you, in their individual capacity, to take all possible necessary actions as per the provisions of law, in larger public and national interest. The petitioners shall always be willing to support in the investigation/enquiry to the best of their capabilities

Yours,

1. Amitabh Thakur

2.Nutan Thakur

Copy to-
1. The Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Principal Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India,New Delhi

Loading...

Most Popular

To Top

Enable BeyondHeadlines to raise the voice of marginalized

 

Donate now to support more ground reports and real journalism.

Donate Now

Subscribe to email alerts from BeyondHeadlines to recieve regular updates

[jetpack_subscription_form]