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
Posted on: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:46:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015