Chairman of CBDT is presenting wrong statement before Baba Ramdevji, as Government is not keen to bring back money stashed abroad, as it was described by me in my detailed Letter dated: 25^th January, 2011 to Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. S. Nijjar, through Shri A.I.S. Cheema, Secretary General of Supreme Court, since the basis of the Government Policy is based on wrong preception of "Tax Evasion", whereas, Foreign Banks of any country allowing black money is depositing in violation of several resolutions of UNO, as described in detail in my Detailed Note, whicch is posted below after my letter dated 25th Janurray, 2010 to Supreme Court Judges, hearing the PIL on Swiss Issue, filed by Sri Ram Jethmalani and another PIL filed by renowned 16 retired bureaucrats. I my be allowed to explain that CBDT is working under the control of the Politicians having vested interests with the unscrupulous businessmen. I will explain detail about the particular part of the working of CBDT, regarding protection of the Huge Black Money of Unscrupulous Businessmen having close Nexus with Powerful Politician.

Milap Choraria

Govt briefs Ramdev on stashed cash

TNN | May 25, 2011, 01.53am IST

NEW DELHI: Keen not to leave itself open to an Anna Hazare-type ambush, the government has proactively approached yoga guru Baba Ramdev to explain that it is doing all it can to pursue money stashed by Indians in foreign accounts.

In an effort to dissuade Ramdev from going on the fast he has threatened to undertake, the government briefed him about various initiatives, including tax avoidance detection treaties, that it has signed with other nations and also those that it intends to sign similar pacts with.

The chairman of central board of direct taxes Sudhir Chandra and senior officials told Ramdev that the process of bringing back black money from abroad is not in the government's hands alone. It has to negotiate foreign laws and even courts and evidence has to be specific and unambiguous.

He was told that the government remains committed in bringing back the money stashed abroad and representations to this effect had been made before the Supreme Court as well. The decision to approach Ramdev is seen to be needed as it could stave off another confrontation.

It is also a different – and politically more desirable – way to deal with the yoga guru, who has a large following, than the dismissive tone adopted by a section of Congress leaders.

Milap Choraria

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085

Website: http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times

E-Mail: milap_choraria@yahoo.com

Dated: 25^th January, 2011

To,

Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy,

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. S. Nijjar,

Through Shri A.I.S. Cheema,

Secretary General of Supreme Court,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi-110001

Sub: Documents in my possession are suggesting that Government is making false claim that it will try to bring back money stashed abroad.

Hon'ble Lordships,

That on the basis of the documents in possession are strongly suggesting that the Government is making false claim that it will try to bring back money stashed abroad, and therefore, I may, please, be permitted to take a bit of your lordship's very precious and valuable time, so that I may be able to throw light on some very important aspects with regard to the respective PILs being heard by Your Lordships filed by (1) Legal Luminary Sri Ram Jetmalani; and the other (2) by some very prominent citizens of India, raising the issue of Indian Black Money plundered by Indians and kept in safe haven of Swiss Banks. Since the issue has originated from my few Mass Email Messages including dated 10^th May, 2008, under heading Indian Black Money in Swiss Banking Systemn" sent to Mr. Pierrg G. Mirabaaud, the then Chairman of Swiss Bankers Association and another Email dated 11^th May, 2008 under heading : "Why India silent on German Bank disclosure offer? Sent to President of India and the Prime Minister of India and also posted them in my List: RTI TIMES, and both delivered to about 22,000 Emails IDs including almost all the Members of Parliament, Large Number IAS and IPS Officials as well as NRIs. According to a Secret Report of Swiss Bankers Association, which described the major five countries with citizens from India having $1,456 billion, Russia $470 billion, UK $390 billion, Ukrain $100 billion and China $96 billion, were depositors in Swiss Banking System. However, since then, under the recent changed scenario, citizens from China are becoming fast depositors. In response to one of my message on 13^th May, 2008 I received an Email from Shri Juswant Singhji: Ex-Finance Minister of India. These messages were used by Transparency International India Chapter by making a Press Statement, which was followed by the Lead News Item of Times of India with the result that Shri L. K. Advani wrote a Letter to the Prime Minister. I don't know whether or not Sri Ram Jethamalani's and or the aforesaid another PIL discloses that the actual source of all the Information concerning the black money has originated from my aforesaid messages? Photocopies of aforesaid messages dated 10^th May, 2008, 11^th May, 2008 from me and dated 13^th May, 2008 and another regarding letter from Shri L. K. Advani the then Leader of Opposition to Parliament to the Prime Minister of India are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "A", "B", "C" and "D" respectively.

However, this is my Humble Prayer that Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Letter Petition as another Public Interest Litigation, to adjudicate the matter for the ends of justice.

That I have been raising this issue of Indian Black Money in Swiss Banks vehemently, time and again, since 2005, and according to information received under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Government of India at no point of time has been seen to be serious to retrieve this huge amount of Indian Black Money stashed abroad, perhaps because it's the powerful's money, that has been deposited in the Swiss Banks.

Hon'ble Lordships, hereinafter, I am explaining the facts, with regard to the aforesaid issue with the supporting documents.

The earlier as well as current edition of the OECD Model Tax Convention, updated on 17 July 2008, provides OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION ON INCOME AND CAPITAL, under its Article 26, under headings : EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION, is limited to Tax Avoidance, and is in no way related to the plundering of Country's actual economic resources, based on economical terrorism, in violation of several UNO Resolutions. Inspite of this, USA has shown a political will and prevailed upon the Government of Switzerland to come under terms to disclose the names of those Americans, who have deposited money in Swiss Banks. Though, as far as USA is concerned it was a very small amount as compared to what is supposed to be from India. In 2005, I submitted a representation to the then Secretary General of UNO Mr. Kofi A. Annan, for imposing sanction against Switzerland, as it's banking secrecy provisions are very much in violation of the very Resolutions of the UN including that of Human Rights, which are as follows:-

1. Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993,

2. Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

3. Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 9 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

4. Resolution 2542 (XXIV) of 11 December 1969 on Social Progress and Development,

5. Resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984 Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace and security,

6. Resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development,

7. Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27,

8. Resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration, all Proclaimed by General Assembly of United Nations Organisations.

That in the light of the above this is also very pertinent to point out that as far back as 1975, i. e. some 35 years back, I had raised this very issue of Indian Black Money in Swiss Banks, when Birla's Hindalco had transferred a huge amount of money in Swiss Bank Account, after opening a Bank Account in the name of Ex-Pilot of Shri G. D. Birla, after siphoning off the alleged amount as Commission against Capital Goods purchased from a different currency payment country, which was not permissible under the then prevailing RBI Guidelines to deposit in different payment currency country. Myself being a Shareholder of Hindalco, had raised this issue, before Mr. G. D. Birla, the then Chairman of Hindalco. At that point of time, I was offered a hefty sum by a Hindalco Agent Mr. Tejraj since deceased (Partner of M/S. Jugraj Tejraj of 2, Portugease Church Street, Kolkata). This offer was made in presence of Sri A. K. Agarwal (at the time of the said offer, I was not aware about his identity and name and that he was holding a high Office in Hindalco, who either then held or subsequently promoted as President of Hindalco and then made Chairman of INDAL by Hindalco management, when INDAL was acquired by Hindalco). I also received life threats, which I pointed out to the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi and also received legal notice from a renowned Mumbai Law Firm, on behalf of Chairman of Hindalco: obviously then was Shri G. D. Birla. The matter of plight of Indian Money was also published by Economic Times, under heading "Shareholde's Rights". (Photocopy of the News Item is attached/enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure "B"). Hindalco also blacklisted my SSI Unit for supply of Raw Materials. I can justify all these facts.

Thereafter, I was made to suffer a lot of problems for a pretty long period. However, in or about March 2005, I decided to raise this issue again and sent a representation to Swiss Embassy giving Notice for 'Fast unto Death' outside Swiss Embassy with Copies to the President, the Prime Minister of India and also sent repeated representations to the Secretary-General of UNO, and some heads of Nations/ and also Members of UN Human Rights Council, having its Head quarter in Geneva, again with the copies to the President, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister of India. In response to such representations, I received a communication on behalf of the then President of world Bank and also came automatic responses from the Swiss and British Government. Further, under Right to Information Act, 2005, President's Secretariat and Prime Minister's Office has also acknowledged that they had received my representations and have also acknowledged that the then President's Secretary Mr. P M Nair, vide his two letters No. 01-Secy/2005 dated 14 May, 2005, to the then Police Commissioner Dr. K. K. Paul, and to Smt. Shashi Tripathi, Secretary (West) Ministry of External Affairs had sent such representations, asking him to see that "Kindly look at the issue in the context of the President's forthcoming State Visit to Switzerland, … … there will be no cause for embarrassment", throws ample light on the Government's mindsets about Indian Black Money in Switzerland. I have also received information acknowledging that the Prime Minister's Office had received such representations, while admitting that such representations were weeded out because of the limitation of period for preservation of documents, clearly reflects that the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office deliberately did not take any action even to try to collect the requisite information about Indian Black Money deposited in Swiss Banks. In this respect, I am annexing herewith photocopies of following representations:-

1) Online Petition addressed to the then Secretary General of UNO Shri Kofi A. Annan requesting thereby that "Security Council should impose sanction against Swiss Government.", and marked as annexure "E";

2) Representation dated 9^th May 2005, 1st July 2005 made to His Excellency President of Federal Republic of Switzerland through Swiss Ambassador to India and marked as annexure "F";

3) Representation dated 18^th May 2005, made to His Excellency President of Federal Republic of Switzerland Mr. Samuel Schmid, and others and marked as annexure "G";

4) Representation dated 1^st July 2005, made to His Excellency Mr. Kofi A. Annan, Secretary General of UNO and marked as annexure "H";

5) Another copy of the aforesaid Representation dated 1^st July 2005, made to His Excellency Mr. Kofi A. Annan, Secretary General of UNO, which was also posted to Permanent Mission of Countries in Geneva and marked as annexure "I";

6) Representation dated 12^th July 2005, made to His Excellency President of Federal Republic of Switzerland Mr. Samuel Schmid, and others being Appeal to People of Switzerland and marked as annexure "J";

7) Representation dated 1^st July 2005, made to His Excellency Mr. Kofi A. Annan, Secretary General of UNO under remarks on top that it is clear evidence proving Swiss Banking Privacy is not just causing threats to soveringnity of a country but also causing threats to very object to existence of UNO and marked as annexure "K".

All the above representations are also posted to President and Prime Minister of India, and others.

That the recent information received under Right to Information Act, 2005, from the President's Secretariat, and Prime Minister's Office, just suggesting that they had received my representations but failed to supply any information that they have taken any action on my large number representations. The Prime Minister's Office replied by Memo Letter No. RTI?3332/2010-PMR dated 11^th November, 2010 signed by one Mr. Salil Kumar, Under Secretary given information interalia that "According to computerized records, one letter dated nil of Shri Milap Choraria was received in this office on 30.03.2005. The files of year 2005 have been weeded out in September 2010… … ". In another paragraph it informed interalia, that "No action on Shri Milap Choraria's letter dated nil was deemed to be warranted by this office in view of the guidelines followed by this … …" givings clear indication that Prime Minister's Office have done nothing, on this very sensitive matter, on mere technical grounds.

Very recently also, on 5^th December, 2010 I have submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Prime Minister to get enquired the issue of Money allegedly Deposited by KGB a USSR secret service in the name of Sri Rahul Gandhi and controlled by Smt. Sonia Gandhi and another matter regarding Rahul Gandhi along with a huge sum of money was detained in 2001, at Boston Airport of USA, as published/ advertisement in a full page, in the New York Times, carrying all those allegations along with a few others as well, which naturally were a great cause of embarrassment especially for those Indian who were residing abroad. It is further intriguing to note that Smt. Sonia Gandhi, instead of taking this umbrage personally and filing herself the defamation suits, chose the secondary route to file Defamation Suits only through an Organisation of Congress Party, with the obvious result that each of such defamation Suit was dismissed by the USA Courts. It is not known whether the Prime Minister ever thought of taking the trouble for any action on my aforesaid representation. The covering part of the aforesaid representation and photocopy of the said Full Page Advertisement are being annexed herewith and marked as annexure "L" Collectively.

That the aforesaid matters pertaining to KGB payment and with regard to the Boston Airport incident are also published in various Websites which are causing a peculiar, sensitive and embarrassing situation for each and every Indian travelling abroad. In support of the aforesaid I am annexing herewith one such posting in an important Website and marked as annexure "M". Till date the aforesaid matters regarding KGB Payments and Boston Airport incidence are also posted in worldwide renowned Website : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Gandhi, and would be available till it does not get removed, which states as follows:-

Controversies- Swiss bank account

Swiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte [2] in 11 November 1991 revealed that Rahul was the beneficiary of accounts worth $2 billion dollars controlled by his mother Sonia Gandhi.^[38]^[39]

Harvard scholar Yevgenia Albats cited KGB correspondence about payments to Rajiv Gandhi and his family, which had been arranged by Viktor Chebrikov,^[40]^[41]^[42] which shows that KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov sought in writing an "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi" from the CPSU in December 1985. Payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.^[40] In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for "Soviet ideological interest."^[41]^[42]

Niira Radia tapes

In secretly taped recordings released in November 2010, Rahul Gandhi's name comes up in a conversation between lobbyist Niira Radia and Mani Shankar Aiyar, a Congress Party politician. Aiyar can be heard to say that "... wo Daya kaa aur Rahul ko kuch business interest hai toh (If Daya and Rahul have a business interest then) that always is an issue ..." (in Ministers' portfolio allocations).^[43] Aiyar is further heard saying that the business interests between the two ended after Maran said something inappropriate mistakenly in 2006 ("Kuch software software… kuch to. Sab business interest hai kuch… dono ka. Jab ye mantri thaa naa tabhi ek baar ghalti se iske munh se kuch nikal gaya." Translation: Don't know. Some software thing. Something. There's some business interest, both have. When he was a Minister, then only he happened to say leak out something by mistake).^[44]^[45]

Boston Airport issue

In 2005 Four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regard to an incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi and his Spanish girlfriend Veronique^[46] were detained by the FBI for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.^[47]^[48]

The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brijesh Mishra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.^[47] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.^[48]^ ^a ^b ("Was Rahul Gandhi detained by FBI?". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 29 September 2001. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/30/stories/02300003.htm. Retrieved 7 April 2010.).

A list of major Scams in India since 1948, with respective references are also posted in the aforesaid Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scams_in_India under the heading: Major Scams as of January 21, 2011, and name of such scams are described as follows:

(1948)Jeep Scandal.^[61]^[62]
Haridas Mundhra Scandal ( 1957).^[63]^[64]
K D Malaviya-Sirajuddin Oil Scandal.^[61]^[65]^[66]
1971 Nagarwala Scandal.^[67]^[68]
1975: Declaration of Emergency.^[69]
Sukhna Land Scandal.^[70]^[71]^[72]^[73] ^[74]
Oil for Food Programme Scam.^[75]^[76]
Barak Missile Scandal.^[77]^[78]
Palmolein Oil Scam.^[79]^[80]
Initial Public Offer(IPO) Scam.^[81]^[82]
Mining Scams.^[83]^[84]
Bitumen Scam.^[85]^[86]
Cement Scandal.^[87]^[88]
IPL Scam.^[89]^[90]
Animal Husbandry Scam.^[91]^[92]
Satyam Software Services Scam.^[93]^[94]
Tansi Land Scam.^[95]^[96]
ULIP Insurance Scam.^[97]^[98]
Cash For Votes Scandal.^[99]^[100]
RBG Resources Scam.^[101]^[102]
Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Fraud.^[103]^[104]
Bofors Scam.^[105]^[106]
Haji Scams.^[107]^[108]
Animal Fodder Scam.^[108]^[109]
Human Trafficking Scam.^[110]^[111]
Churhat Lottery Scam.^[112]^[113]
Telgi Stamp Papers Scam.^[114]^[115]
Urea Scam.^[116]^[117]
St Kitts Forgery.^[118]^[119]
Anantnag Transport Subsidy Scam.^[69]^[120]
Yugoslav Dinar Scam^[121]^[122]
Kargil and Coffin Scam.^[123]^[124]
Uday Goyal Arrow Global Agrotech Scam.^[125]^[126]
Emaar Scam.^[127]^[128]
Spiritual Guru Scams.^[129]^[130]
HDW Submarine Scandal.^[131]^[132]
Kashmir Sex Racket Scam.^[133]^[134]
Babri and Ram Mandir Scam.^[135]^[136]
Land Acquisition Scams on name of SEZ with harassment false cases.^[137]^[138]
Profident Fund Scam with Current corrupted Judges in both Supreme Court and High Court.^[139]^[140]
Ketan Parek Stock Market Scam.^[141]^[142]
Bansali Scam.^[143]^[144]
Cobbler and Shoes Scam.^[145]^[146]
Nagarjuna Finance Scam.^[147]^[148]
Dalmia DSQ Software Scam.^[149]^[150]
UTI Scam.^[140]^[151]
Uday Goyal Scam.^[125]^[152]
Letter of Credit (LOC) Scam.^[121]^[153]
Sanjay Agrawal Home Trade Scam.Scam.^[154]^[155]
LIC Insurance Scam.^[156]^[157]
Harshad Mehta Stock Market Scam.^[158]^[159]
Suflam Sujalam Scam.^[160]
Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank (MMCB) Scam.^[161]^[162]
Hawala Transaction Scams.^[121]^[163]
Global Trust Bank Scam and Bankruptcy.^[164]^[165]
Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank (CCUB) Scam and Bankruptcy.^[166]^[167]
Vasavi Bank Scam and Bankruptcy.^[168]^[169]
Krushi Cooperative Urban Bank (KCUB) Scam.^[170]^[171]
Prudential Bank Scam and Bankruptcy.^[172]^[173]
Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank (NDCCB) Scam.^[173]^[174]
2010 housing loan scam.^[175]^[176]
Sugar Import Scam.^[177]^[178]
Preferential Allotment Scam.^[179]
Meghalaya Forest Scam.^[179]
Fertiliser Import Scam.^[179]^[180]
Telecom Scam.^[181]^[182]
SNC Lavalin Power Project Scam.^[183]^[184]
Teak Plantation Swindle Scam.^[185]^[186]
Scorpene Submarine Scam.^[187]^[188]
Taj Corridor Scam.^[189]^[190]
Army Ration Pilferage Scam.^[191]^[192]
State Bank of Saurashtra Scam.^[193]^[194]
Flood Relief Scam.^[195]^[196]^[197]
Rice Export Scam.^[198]^[199]
Bulletproof Jackets Scam.^[200]^[201]
MCD Pension Scam.^[202]^[203]
AICTE Scam.^[204]^[205]
Medical Council of India(MCI) Scam.^[206]^[207]
Rail Recruitment Scam.^[208]^[209]
NREGA Scam.^[210]^[211]
Siachen Scam.^[212]^[213]
J & K Milk Scam.^[214]^[215]
Gorshkov Scam.^[216]^[217]
MPLAD Scam.^[218]^[219]
Public Distribution System(PDS) Scam.^[220]^[221]
Rajya Sabha Vote Scam.^[222]^[223]
Cash for Questions in Parliament Scam.^[224]^[225]^[226]
City Limouzine & Realcom Scam.^[227]^[228]^[229]
Common Wealth Games(CWG) Corruption.^[230]^[231]
Adarsh Housing Society Scam.^[232]^[233]
2G spectrum scam.^[234]^[235]
Citibank Fraud.^[236]
Tax Evasion Scam.^[237]^[238]^[239]

The main problem is that till the Government is not ready to accept that whatsoever high and mighty you might be, you are not above the law, till then the Indian Money plundered from Indian Economy, after making a large number of people to live under the conditions of starvation, cannot be retrieved from Foreign Banks, majority of such money is deposited in Swiss Banks. In fact since 1948 all the scams including aforesaid listed are required to be enquired into with the political will to take the enquiry to its logical conclusions that whether scammers has deposited money in Swiss Bank or not.

I hope that Your Lordship will consider all the above facts and allow my this letter petition as a PIL in the larger public interests and for sake of the Rule of Law that "whatsoever high and mighty you might be, you are not above the law".

With Best Regards,

Yours faithfully,

(Milap Choraria)

Copies of the covering Letters to

Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India,

Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Hon'ble Finance Minister of India,

Shri Ramjethmalani, Renowned Legal Luminary, and Petitioner of one of the PIL.

(Milap Choraria)

Un-truth-full statement made by Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee

Milap Choraria

The Swiss foreign minister Ms. Micheline Calmy-Rey, during her visit tor New Delhi, claimed on 30^th August, 2010, that the total amount of money in Swiss Banks is $2,050 billion, half of which were institutional funds, if half of the $2,050 billion is institutional money, the unaccounted-for money stashed abroad would be a little over $1,025 billion. Further, she has indirectly admitted India's major stake by saying that if the Indians account for 50% of this figure, their share would come to only $500 billion, and made it clear that the information under the revised agreement could be subject to conditions stipulated by OECD. Either her claim is far from truth or otherwise it is construed in a diplomatic way, by not taking into consideration the money already forfeited as stands for unlimited, period as unclaimed. Majority of such money admitted unclaimed assets in the Swiss Financial sector belongs to Corrupt Politicians, bureaucrats and unscrupulous businessmen from developing countries. But from such admission this is very clear that 50% money deposited in Swiss Banks may be from India alone.

As per my own rough estimate made during 2005, which I have been referring in my various representations to the then Secretary-General of UNO, and Heads of the Switzerland and other States that as per available figures, "Investment from foreign customers in Swiss Asset Management accounted for a share of approximately 57%. Of all assets held, 42.1% came from private clients and 47.5% from institutional investors. Commercial clients accounted for the remaining 10.4%." Further that: "Swiss financial sector manages roughly a third of all worldwide financial assets invested abroad. It consequently holds a leading global position in the rapidly growing asset management sector. Assets in customer accounts managed by Swiss banks as of end of 2001 amounted to CHF 3,320 billions." Switzerland also has the world's 5^th largest bond market and accounts for more than 1/4^th of all the money flowing into the global hedge fund industry. Such 57% which comes to CHF 1,881 billions in Foreign Asset Management is invested by the foreign clients certainly from developing countries. Reportedly rest of 43% is also not from the Swiss Citizens. This is the real specialty of Swiss-based banks which according to certain estimates, manage more than one fourth of all internationally-invested private wealth", "Switzerland's banking system currently comprises 378 institutions with a combined balance sheet totaling more than 2,300 billion Swiss francs. Out of the two leading banks – the UBS and Credit Suisse - are ranked among the ten largest in the world, and in the area of asset management, Swiss banks are the world's leader", "A traditional strength of the Swiss Financial Centre is asset management which is created over half of the banks' total added value. In this business domain Switzerland occupies a leading global position.

In fact for some obvious reason the Government of India is not keen to collect the information about Indian Black Money in the Swiss Banks, which is amply evident from the Statement made on 30/08/2010 in the Loksabha, by the Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee, that so far as the Swiss laws are concerned, they do not give any information in respect of their banking transactions. Swiss Bank transactions are so strictly enforced that only once in 1945 the assets of the Nazi leaders who were subjected to Nuremberg Trials were revealed by the Swiss Bank. Before and after that they have not revealed any such information. Today's agreement will provide us an opportunity to have the relevant Bank information for taxation purposes. Secondly, with many other countries we are having taxation agreements. For instance, as per the German laws we got some information that we can raise the demand for taxes. But we cannot disclose this information to any authority including the Enforcement Directorate or that of even our Parliament. He further stated that agreement, inked would allow exchange of information in accordance with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) standards. The issue of Indians having secret Swiss bank accounts was a poll plank during last year's general elections. Indians are alleged to have assets worth billions of dollars in banks in Switzerland. In this context Shri Mukherjee further claimed that it was an agreement between two "sovereign" countries and Switzerland "is in no way subordinate to us". He said the agreement will help India access the information on unaccounted money for taxation purposes only. "The new provision will be applicable only for prospective information and not for past information.

Here the question is not regarding any issue relating to sovereignty of any country, since the aforesaid statement of the Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee as well as corresponding policy of Swiss Government are completely contrary to so many various International Covenants, Declarations etc., numbering more than half-a-dozen viz., the (1) Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993; (2) Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (3) Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 9 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (4) Resolution 2542 (XXIV) of 11 December 1969 on Social Progress and Development; (5) Resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984 Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace and security; (6) Resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development; (7) Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27; (8) Resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration, all Proclaimed by General Assembly of United Nations Organisations.

The statement of the Finance Minister is also not in complete conformity even with the changing policy of Switzerland. Earlier Accounts in Swiss Banks could have been opened just by Numbers, without giving any identity details of account Holders. But since 1977, The Swiss Bankers Association's Due Diligence Agreement forms part of the guidelines for self-regulation drafted by the Swiss banking industry. It has been in existence since 1977 and is revised regularly. In January, 2003 'Know-Your-Customer' Rules were issued for Swiss Banks based on the new Money Laundering Ordinance, mandatorily applied from 1^st July, 2003 and thereafter without giving details of Account holders, the opening of account was completely restricted, with sole object to (a) fight against terrorist funding; (b) Banks are prohibited from using establishments outside Switzerland to circumvent the agreement's provisions; (c) The basic know-your-customer obligations with regards to verifying the identity of the contracting party and identifying the beneficial owner of funds are set out. Duties of further clarification in the case of higher-risk business relationships are governed by the Swiss Money Laundering Ordinance; (d) Banks are no longer entitled to commence a business relationship unless the party with whom they are transacting presents an official identity document. The fact that an employee of the bank personally knows the contracting party is no longer sufficient for know-your-customer purposes; (e) The bank must request certified copies of identity documents where business relationships are commenced by correspondence or through the Internet; (f) Where the contracting party is a foreign legal person, its identity must be verified on the basis of a certified extract from a companies register or an equivalent document, or on the basis of information contained on an official website providing such corporate information; (g) Where a business relationship is commenced with a legal person or partnership which is not registered in the Swiss Commercial Register, the bank must also verify the identity and keep a copy of the identity documents of the people who established the business relationship, if these people are also authorized signatories on the bank account; (h) As an exception, where a bank is not in a position to obtain the documents requested by the Due Diligence Agreement for the purposes of verifying the identity of the contracting party, other documents can be used or information can be obtained from official bodies, as long as this is considered appropriate in light of the principles laid down in the Due Diligence Agreement; (i) A bank can delegate responsibility for verifying the identity of a contracting party on the basis of a written agreement. In such cases the bank must properly instruct the delegated party and must be in a position to ensure that verification is properly executed. The original documents used in the verification process must be remitted to the bank; (j) In principle, all documents requested in order to verify the identity of the contracting party must be obtained in the appropriate form before a bank account can be used. In exceptional cases, a bank may take upto 30 days to obtain these documents from a customer, if the documents are not available at the time the account is opened and if the bank is in a position to ascertain and ensure that the missing documents will be submitted within this time-frame. No withdrawals may be made until the documents have been received, and access to the account will be blocked at the end of the 30-day period, if the documents have not been submitted by then; (k) Foreign banks which are not subject to appropriate money-laundering supervision (i.e. which are not subject to the supervision of a Financial Action Task Force of the Member State), and which operate numbered sub-accounts for customers which are not specified, are obliged to inform any Swiss banks with which they transact of the beneficial owners of such numbered accounts. Special rules apply to charities, which are now bound by the beneficial owner identification requirements. Violations will be investigated by special investigators appointed by the board of directors of the Swiss Bankers Association and an independent supervisory board, under the new Swiss Federal Banking Commission Money Laundering Ordinance.

A numbered bank account is a type of bank account where the name of the account holder is kept secret, and he identifies himself to the bank by means of a code word known only by the account holder and a restricted number of bank employees, thus providing the holder with a degree of bank privacy in their financial transactions. Numbered bank accounts are frequently associated in the public mind with a desire by the account holder to minimize governmental scrutiny and taxation, and perhaps to conceal an illegal or unethical origin of the money in the account. For this reason, numbered bank accounts are illegal in most banking jurisdictions, but are available (subject to heavy international regulations) in some Western European countries with a long tradition of specializing in international banking, such as Switzerland and Austria.

In order to restrict the use of numbered accounts for money laundering and other forms of financial fraud, the Council of Europe mandated in 1980 that numbered bank accounts be subject to international and domestic regulations pertaining to the verification of the identities of account holders and their activities. Under these regulations, banks which operate numbered accounts may be required by a court order to reveal the owner's name and financial details, and the identity of the holder or beneficial owner must be examined for obvious fraudulent intentions at the start of the banking relationship. Since July 1, 2005, Switzerland (as the largest holder of European numbered bank accounts) has also charged a withholding tax on all interest earned in the personal Swiss accounts of European Union residents, a measure designed to satisfy EU tax requirements while still preserving account holder's anonymity.

There is no doubt that Swiss Government is under its Constitutional obligations and removal of such embargo, is causing severe damages to the Human Rights of the masses of different countries. Now, in view of various Resolutions adopted by UNO, time is to change such laws by Switzerland, by amending its Constitution. Therefore, instead of advocating in favour of such Swiss Policy, by such statement with reference to year of 1945, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, has put on stake the interests of the Country, in view of the admittedly enormous size which is at stake of Indian Money in Swiss Banks. Instead he ought to have come forward with a strong voice to create a worldwide wave of pressure upon the Swiss Government to do the needful.

In this respect my correspondence with Swiss Authority is referred at: http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/swiss.

Besides, Shri Pranab Mukherjee also should have used the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital.

Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention provides the most widely accepted legal basis for bilateral exchange of information for tax purposes. More than 3,000 bilateral treaties are based on the Model Convention.

Article 26 creates an obligation to exchange information that is foreseeably relevant to the correct application of a tax convention as well as for purposes of the administration and enforcement of domestic tax laws of the contracting states. Countries are not at liberty to engage in "fishing expeditions" or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer. In formulating their requests, the requesting state should demonstrate the foreseeable relevance of the requested information. In addition, the requesting state should also have pursued all domestic means to access the requested information except those that would give rise to disproportionate difficulties.

Article 26 was updated in July 2005, at which time paragraphs 4 and 5 were added. These paragraphs make it clear that a state cannot refuse a request for information solely because it has no domestic tax interest in the information (paragraph 4) or solely because it is held by a bank or other financial institution (paragraph 5). Bank secrecy is not incompatible with the requirements of Article 26, and virtually all countries have bank secrecy or confidentiality rules. Meeting the standard of Article 26 requires only limited exceptions to bank secrecy rules and would not undermine the confidence of citizens in the protection of their privacy.

Finally, where information is exchanged it is subject to strict confidentiality rules. It is expressly provided in Article 26 that information communicated shall be treated as secret and that it can only be used for the purposes provided for in the convention.

Text of Article 26:

OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION ON INCOME AND CAPITAL

Article 26

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is foreseeably relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws concerning taxes of every kind and description imposed on behalf of the Contracting States, or of their political subdivisions or local authorities, insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention. The exchange of information is not restricted by Articles 1 and 2.

2. Any information received under paragraph 1 by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, the determination of appeals in relation to the taxes referred to in paragraph 1, or the oversight of the above. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.

3. In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:

a) to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;

b) to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State;

c) to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy.

4. If information is requested by a Contracting State in accordance with this Article, the other Contracting State shall use its information gathering measures to obtain the requested information, even though that other State may not need such information for its own tax purposes. The obligation contained in the preceding sentence is subject to the limitations of paragraph 3 but in no case shall such limitations be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic interest in such information.

5. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 3 be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because the information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.

Any Government, up to some extent in consideration of security aspects, can justify banking privacy policy adopted for its own (origin) citizen. But Banking Privacy policy aimed just to secure illegal money of the clients from other countries cannot be justified at all, because such citizen are legally liable to disclose deposits in foreign Banks before a legitimate authority of their own country.

Accounts in Swiss banks can be allowed to be scrutinized only when Switzerland's constitution that provides for privacy can be amended. In February 2005 Survey Polls were conducted throughout Switzerland by the Swiss Banking Association, which showed that 78% of the people of Switzerland are against the lifting of banking privacy even whatever International pressure exerts, because banking and deposits are responsible for the majority of the country's Economical Strength, albeit a large fraction of this money is illicit. Reason is obvious that in terms of added value, employment and tax revenues, the financial sector is one of the pillars of the Swiss economy.

On February 18th, 2004 H.E. Mr. Eric Martin, Ambassador, Head of the Economic and Financial Affairs Division, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs addressed at JCIF - Japan Center for International Finance, Tokyo, Japan, in which he concluded his address, with the remarks:

"Against this backdrop, I would like to conclude by stating that the efforts aimed at promoting a broader exchange of information can not be separated from the fact that any easing of the observance of confidentiality in Switzerland would certainly be welcomed by various rival financial centers that may be happy to manage certain assets currently deposited in our country. In this context, where significant financial interests are involved and arguments of an ethical nature are raised, it should be pointed out that a number of OECD countries have offshore financial centers within their zones of influence, which have been gaining rapidly in importance over the past few years. Other countries benefit from legislation that in practice grants an even higher degree of confidentiality or discretion than Swiss legislation does. This exhibits the growing nature of this menace not just in Switzerland but also outside.

Taking advantage of the severe constraints caused by Switzerland Constitution, which provides that without referendum such Law cannot be changed, people of the Switzerland are determined not to allow changes in such laws. Therefore, this problem of International magnitude will not be solved till some sort of stiff actions are taken by the United Nations Organisation, which should be directed towards its Member States that "they cannot maintain any financial or other relationship with Switzerland or any other country, having Banking Privacy for Foreign Citizen". Such directions should be imposed for a period, till these countries do not change their Banking Privacy Laws, to ensure disclosures of the following details before the authorities of respective countries:

a) Total amount of "unclaimed" money in Switzerland from each country;

b) Total amount of money deposited in Switzerland with names of individuals / organizations, address and country.

As per the then roaming report a File exists in India's Central Vigilance Commission, indicating that amount between about Rs16 and 50 Lakhs of Crores of Rupees) ($US 800 Billions Dollars or so) of the Black money from India are deposited in Swiss and other foreign Banks by the Corrupt Politicians, Bureaucrats and unscrupulous Businessmen. In the backdrop of such figures, the Swiss foreign minister Ms. Micheline Calmy-Rey already admits that such money may be around $500 Billions in Switzerland alone. Since, control of the Government is not free from embracement from the Powerful Corrupt Politicians, whose money might be in Swiss Banks, as a result, Government of India is not initiating the matter in appropriate manner. As a result since 06^th December 2000 to 29^th June, 2010 total 362 such TIEA agreements are signed between two countries. But, alas India is to be seen no where.

In fact Swiss Banking secrecy threatened the world peace, as such in 1995 itself issue was raised by Powerful Jewish from USA.

Negotiations

Starting in 1995 the World Jewish Congress (WJC), a group with strong political connections to United States federal and state officials, began negotiations on behalf of various Jewish organizations with Swiss banks and the Swiss government over dormant Jewish World War II bank accounts. Led by Edgar Bronfman, the heir to the Seagram's fortune, the WJC entered a class-action in Brooklyn, NY combining several established suits in New York, California, and the District of Columbia. The original suits arose from grievances of Holocaust survivors and their heirs against Swiss banks. They alleged improper difficulties in accessing these accounts because of requirements such as death certificates (typically non-existent for Holocaust victims), along with deliberate efforts on the part of some Swiss banks to retain the balances indefinitely. The causes for claims eventually expanded to include the value of art works purported to have been stolen, "damages" to persons denied admission to Switzerland on the strength of refugee applications, and the value or cost of labor purported to have been performed by persons being maintained at Swiss government expense in displaced-person camps during the Holocaust, along with interest on such claims from the time of loss. Plaintiffs included all Holocaust victims, not just Jews.

Hearings

The WJC was able to marshall the unprecedented support of U.S. government officials including senator Alfonse D'Amato R-NY, who held hearings of the Senate Banking Committee in which he claimed to possess "recently declassified documents that shed new light" on the Swiss role in the war. He also claimed that "hundreds of millions of dollars" of war-era Jewish assets remained in Swiss banks.^[1] At the behest of President Bill Clinton,^[2] Undersecretary of Commerce Stuart Eizenstat testified at these hearings and commissioned a report^[3] which accused Switzerland of being "Nazi Germany's banker." The report relied exclusively on U.S. government archives. It contained no new historical information on Nazi victims' deposits into Swiss banks, and criticized the decisions of U.S. officials who negotiated settlements with Switzerland after the war as being too lenient. Christoph Meili, a Swiss bank guard, also testified at the hearings,^[4] claiming to have witnessed illegal shredding of wartime records at Union Bank of Switzerland (SBG/UBS) in January 1997. He removed wartime records of transactions with German companies and gave them to the Swiss-Israeli Cultural Association. A warrant was issued for his arrest for violation of banking secrecy laws, and he fled to the U.S. UBS claimed the records were not relevant to dormant Jewish assets.

US-Swiss tension

The hearings led to international friction between the US and Switzerland, with boycotts of Swiss companies and products threatened in several US states. In Switzerland, the most controversial contention^[5] of the Eizenstat report was that Switzerland assisted the Nazis beyond what was necessary for a neutral country, and prolonged the war. Swiss public opinion was overwhelmingly against any settlement. The banks' position was that the settlement demands were grossly out of proportion to the value of unclaimed assets, and the Swiss government's position was that negotiations relating to laundering of assets looted by the Nazis were settled during previous agreements with the Allied governments and could not be reopened, because no new historical information had come to light.^[6] Audits of dormant accounts ordered by the Swiss government in 1962 and 1995 showed a total of $32 million (1995 dollars) in unclaimed war-era accounts. The WJC rejected initial offers from the banks and demanded payment of $1.8 billion to settle the lawsuit. During the negotiations, the Swiss banks agreed to pay for another audit of wartime accounts headed by ex Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. This audit committee consisted of three representatives from the banks, and three representatives from the Jewish groups. NY City Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi played a crucial role in the negotiations, convening a meeting in December 1997 with Swiss bank executives and Democratic Party state treasurers to discuss sanctions such as divesting state funds from Swiss banks and withholding licenses.^[7] Hevesi also withheld an operating license for the merger of Union Bank of Switzerland with Swiss Bank Corporation, who together made $4 billion in profits per year in New York City. Negotiations involving the banks, the WJC, and Undersecretary Eizenstat ultimately resulted in a settlement of $1.25 billion in August 1998. The Swiss government refused to take part in the settlement, and started a CHF 300 million Special Fund for Holocaust Victims with the Swiss National Bank.^[8] It also commissioned an independent panel of international scholars known as the Bergier Commission to study the relationship between Switzerland and the Nazi regime.

Volcker and Bergier commissions

The Volcker commission audit cost CHF 300 million and gave its final report in December 1999. It determined that the 1999 book value of all dormant accounts possibly belonging to victims of Nazi persecution that were unclaimed, closed by the Nazis, or closed by unknown persons was CHF 95 million. Of this total, CHF 24 million were "probably" related to victims of Nazi persecution.^[9] In addition the commission found "no proof of systematic destruction of records of victim accounts, organized discrimination against the accounts of victims of Nazi persecution, or concerted efforts to divert the funds of victims of Nazi persecution to improper purposes." It also "confirmed evidence of questionable and deceitful actions by some individual banks in the handling of accounts of victims".^[9] The Volcker commission recommended that for settlement purposes, the book values should be modified back to 1945 values (by adding back fees paid and subtracting interest) and then be multiplied by 10 to reflect average long-term investment rates in Switzerland. Under these rules, a total of $379.4 million was awarded to account holders or their heirs ^[10]. In cases where the claimant could be verified but the size of the account could not, a $125,000 award was given. The commission recommended that the remaining balance of the settlement should be given to other victims of Nazi persecution. The Bergier Commission reached similar conclusions about the banks' conduct in its final report,^[11] and found that trade with Nazi Germany did not significantly prolong the war.^[11]

Settlement

On November 22, 2000, Judge Edward R. Korman announced settlement of this case with his approval of a plan featuring the payment of $1.25 billion into funds controlled by the plaintiff organizations. He appointed Judah Gribetz Special Master to administer the plan, which is sometimes called the Gribetz Plan after its chief author^[12].

By October 2009, some $490 million had been paid out to individual claimants, and acceptance of new claims had been discontinued for some time. This amount includes not only amounts deposited into Swiss banks by purported victims, but compensation for labor purportedly performed in displaced-persons camps, the value of purported looted assets, compensation for persons purported to have sought admission to Switzerland as refugees and to have been denied admission, both Jewish and non-Jewish, plus interest calculated on the claimed losses from the time of loss to the time of payment.

YAISHWARYAJ

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

[rtitimes] Whether Govt briefs to Baba Ramdev on stashed cash, can be treated as honest?