How was Quattrocchis account de-frozen? CBI froze Ottavio Quattrocchis account when the Interpol brought to its notice that the Italian had money in two accounts in the Swiss branch of BSI-AG. The total amount was around Rs 21 crore. The gravamen of the CBI plea was that these formed part of the proceeds of the crime relating to the case. The CBI had given a noting of the special judge who said that he was satisfied with the prima facie evidence that showed that Quattrocchi had received $7.123 million as kickbacks in the Bofors deal. The Italian businessmen had protested at this freezing, but the London high court had upheld CBIs plea. Quattrocchis lawyers started putting pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after Delhi high court threw out the Bofors case and discharged the Hindujas on May 31, 2005. They claimed to the CPS that their case was linked with Hindujas who were charge-sheeted along with them in October 2000. Quattrocchis counsel claimed that if Hindujas were discharged on the same evidence, why should the same benefit not to be extended to the other accused in the case? It was a compelling argument and the CPS wanted to know the position of the Indian government. Around this time, the CBI was dithering whether it should file a special leave petition in the supreme court against the high court discharge. At the behest of the then CBI director, US Misra, an opinion was sought from KP Pathak, law officer attached to the law ministry. Pathak suggested that in the absence of any authenticated documents in terms of the evidence act, I am of the opinion that proceeding against all accused persons such as the Hindujas, Bofors and Quattrocchi will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. He also stated that there was no connection between the money and the crime and it cannot be sustained in the court. Under pressure from Quattrocchi, the CPS asked whether the restraining order on the accounts should stay. At this juncture, the CBI sent a law officer, B Datta, to London. Initially, he was to be accompanied by another CBI official, but the expenditure department shot it down. Datta parroted the opinion of Pathak stating that the CBI had no evidence to link the money in his account to the Bofors kickbacks. The CBI also owned up to the CPS that Quattrocchi had managed to stave off extradition proceedings in Malaysia, where he was arrested for a short while. Subsequent court orders in India had made it difficult to nail the Italian businessman. On January 11, 2006, a TV channel exposed the manner in which Quattrocchis account was de-frozen. All hell broke loose. An impression was created that the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, was not kept in the loop about this decision. Media reports tried to show that the de-freezing had taken place at the behest of the law minister, HR Bharadwaj, without even the CBI knowing about it. This impression was strengthened by the remarks of Bharadwaj where he stated that It is wrong to keep someones money frozen when there is no proof against him. For three days, the opposition leaders and the media had a free run. Prime Minister Singh and his handlers portrayed that they had nothing to do with the decision and they did not want to dirty their hands by commenting on the unsavoury incident. The law minister, Bharadwaj, was reportedly told not to speak to the press. The CBI officials, through off the record briefing to mediapersons, disseminated suggestions that they were quite upset about how the de-freezing had taken place behind their backs. They also expressed their resolve to get Quattrocchi extradited from Italy. For those three days, before the CBI in an unprecedented manner cleared the confusion and detailed the procedure by which Datta went to London, there were all kinds of aspersions against the government floating about. CBI chiefs decision to clarify its stand urged Prime Minister Singh, too, to state that there was no interference from the government in the case.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 05:01:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015