Conviction of Curroption

Sukh Ram was convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs two lakhs by a Delhi Court for causing a loss of Rs 1.68 crore to the exchequer by favouring a private party in an equipment purchase contract almost a decade ago. Designated CBI Judge V K Jain said that in the purchase of radio equipments from Hyderabad-based company Advanced Radio Masts (ARM) Ltd in 1993-94, the then Telecom Minister Sukh Ram, Deputy Director General of Department of Telecom (DoT) Runu Ghosh and company owner P Rama Rao entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause "wrongful loss to the government". The Court had sentenced Sukhram on two counts- one for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) for abusing the official position to cause wrongful gain to others and consequent loss to the government. This is how the Crime Against Women Cell of the Delhi Police interrogated a five-year-old girl called Nikita. The questioner asked Nikita to show what her father did to her. Pointing to her private parts, the child said that her father put his finger there. The questioner then asked, "Daddy puts what else?" Nikita answers: "Daddy puts his bottle." The questioner drew a sketch of a man and asked, "Where is papa's bottle? Is it on the cupboard?" Nikita pointed to the part between the legs in the drawing. The questioner asked the child to draw "papa's bottle." When the child hesitated, the questioner herself drew a penis.
The Delhi Administration filed the transcript of this interrogation before the Supreme Court in response to a petition filed by Nikita's father, Satish Mehra, challenging the charges framed against him by the trial court on the complaint of his estranged wife. The Supreme Court, expressing concern at the manner in which Nikita was interrogated, said it had no doubt that the purpose of such questions was "to lead the child unmistakably to the tutored answers." This and other equally serious infirmities in the case lent credence to Mehra's contention that his estranged wife was using their child to settle scores with him. If the trial had been allowed in spite of its farcical nature, Nikita would have been "subjected to cross-questions involving sex and sex organs." The Supreme Court therefore found no option but to quash the charges framed against Mehra.
Surprisingly, this little-known judgment, delivered way back in 1996, was invoked last week by the Delhi high court to discharge former communications minister Sukh Ram. In fact, it is the only precedent cited by Justice R.S. Sodhi in his 14-page judgment on the question of how the courts are to discharge a person. But what is the relevance of Mehra's marital squabble to the corruption case in which Sukh Ram was alleged to have caused a loss of Rs 1.68 crore to the exchequer? Sodhi gives no explanation -- and for a good reason. There is no way Mehra's case could have otherwise been passed off as a precedent for discharging Sukh Ram.
The knee-jerk reaction in the media to Sukh Ram's discharge has been to dismiss it as yet another instance of the CBI's bungling in cases involving influential politicians. But a closer scrutiny suggests that the problem lies elsewhere. If and when the CBI appeals against Sodhi's judgment, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn it. This is because Sodhi's decision is contrary to a plethora of Supreme Court judgments which are more relevant than Mehra's peculiar case of child molestation.
The facts of Sukh Ram's case, as acknowledged by Sodhi himself, are as follows: first, the government incurred a loss of Rs 1.68 crore in a telecom equipment deal. Second, the loss was on account of a decision taken by Sukh Ram to pay a higher price for that equipment to a Hyderabad-based manufacturer, P. Rama Rao of Advance Radio Masts Limited. Third, Sukh Ram's decision was contrary to a recommendation of his ministry's expert body, the Price Negotiation Committee. Fourth, the only officer who aided Sukh Ram in doing the necessary paper work was Runu Ghosh. It was on the basis of these accepted facts that the CBI filed its chargesheet against Sukh Ram, Runu Ghosh and Rama Rao accusing them broadly of criminal conspiracy to cause a pecuniary loss to the exchequer.
The trial judge, Ajit Bharihoke, ruled that the CBI had made out a prima facie case to frame charges against the accused and put them on trial. Bharihoke's order is in keeping with the settled law that at the stage of framing charges, all that the court has to ascertain is whether the documents on record "taken at their face value" disclose the offence with which the accused are sought to be charged.
Sodhi did just the opposite while quashing the charges framed by Bharihoke. Rather than taking the documents on record at their face value, Sodhi made a summary evaluation of them to see if they disclose mens rea (criminal intention) as well. His finding is, "from the material on record, it cannot be inferred that there was sinister design, malice or motive" on the part of Sukh Ram and his two co-accused to proceed against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, Sodhi's decision flies in the face of any number of Supreme Court rulings that "it is not open for the court to weigh or assess the evidence" at the stage of charging or discharging a person. The court can ascertain the guilt of the accused only after the trial is held and all the evidence from both sides is adduced.
Sodhi's premature finding seems all the more untenable given that in 1997 the Delhi high court forced the cancellation of another tender awarded by Sukh Ram to the same Rama Rao "on extraneous considerations." Though Sodhi did not take the documents on record at their face value, he would have us take his judgment at its face value and believe that there was no extraneous consideration in Sukh Ram's decision to pay Rama Rao the extra amount of Rs 1.68 crore.

Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

The Centre on 14th July 2008 deferred implementation of the controversial Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, which received the President's assent on June 23.
The Government took the decision after the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs held informal discussions in the wake of the agitation by lawyers across the country against many provisions of the amendments.
Highly-placed sources told The Hindu that Home Minister Shivraj Patil had assured the Ministers that the Government would take a decision soon. But within hours, the Government came out with an order to keep the amendments in abeyance.
The order said: "All the amendments that have been legislated with regard to the Cr.P.C. are kept in abeyance. Further, the Government will consider the objections raised by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the legal fraternity on behalf of the litigant public and will take appropriate steps to drop the amendments which are considered to be adverse to the interests of the public."
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured a delegation, led by Madras High Court Advocates' Association president S. Prabhakaran, and the BCI represented by Congress MP, S.K. Karventhan, that he would look into their grievances.
On Wednesday, Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran met Congress president Sonia Gandhi and sought her intervention.
Lawyers have objected to a few amendments such as the one introduced to Section 438 on anticipatory bail. It contemplates an accused subjecting himself to the court where the anticipatory bail application is pending. If the court rejects it, the police will arrest the accused immediately.
Section 20 confers powers on the magistrate to recommend to the prosecution the filing of an appeal in a criminal case even for petty offences though under the existing law it was not his duty to give any such suggestion. This, the lawyers said, would put pressure on the magistrate to award enhanced punishment even for minor offences.
The judicial magistrate conducted parades to enable eyewitnesses to identify the accused. Now under Section 54 A, even the village administrative officer, the tahsildar and the police could hold the identification parades, giving the Executive the judicial power.
At present, if an accused fails to appear before court continuously on the specified date and time, he can be declared a proclaimed offender. By an amendment to Section 82, the court could order confiscation of the property of the proclaimed offender. This, the lawyers felt, would infringe the rights of the accused. For, until he/she was found guilty, the court could not order seizure of property.
The amendment to the CrPC gives the police freedom to use their discretion on whether to arrest an accused in offences punishable with jail terms of up to seven years. "The legal fraternity of India strongly condemns the central government for making such amendments, which are pro-criminal and help the politicians, their henchmen and corrupt bureaucrats who indulge in bribes, land grabbing and other offences,"

Amendments in sections 41 and 309 of CrPC led to the nationwide strike. Certain provisions in the proposed amendment Act 5 of 2009 was favourable to the public while certain other provisions would end up giving sweeping powers to the police officers. Specifically, the legal fraternity is opposed to the amendments under Section 41 A and B wherein police officers would have wide powers to arrest accused at any time nullifying the earlier provision of seeking the production of the arrested accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
Similarly, Section 309 also dispenses with the conventional and traditional approach of cross examination and the new amendment enables the prosecuting agency to go ahead with the procedures without cross examinations.
Such amendments granting sweeping powers to prosecuting agencies would be detrimental to the constitutionally ensured rights of citizens.

Same Sex marriages in India

While talking about legitimating same sex marriage, I am reminded of a story of a washer man and his donkey. The donkey refused to move with the heavy bundle of clothes on his back from his house to the pond. The washer man nailed a carrot to a stick, which was tied in front of the animal's mouth. The donkey kept on moving with a view to cat the priced vegetable - the ass goes on and the carrot is un-reached. In the field of jurisprudence this shows how some laws the proverbial ass, pursue, perpetually, the carrot of the moral ideal.Is it not time we woke up to the reality, that homosexuals are as normal as you and me. According to some study, about at least 5-10% of population is gay. You can calculate and see what the figure is for India. Even if it is not that high a figure, we know that it is a quite common phenomenon. Its not good in the Indian society but its is a pshchological phenomenan, you can not help it. An increasing number of gay groups through out the country and serious thinking among them is seen in India in the last few years. Whether same sex marriage should be legalized is more of a religious debate then a political one. While I believe that marriage is a sacred union between man and woman, I also believe that our country was founded on the principle that everybody has the right to the pursuit of happiness. And if a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman makes them happy then I think it's okay. I do not believe it affects anyone negatively.

History:Homosexuality has an ancient history in India. Ancient texts like Rig-Veda which dates back around 1500 BC and sculptures and vestiges depict sexual acts between women as revelations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility . The description of homosexual acts in the Kamasutra, the Harems of young boys kept by Muslim Nawabs and Hindu Aristocrats, male homosexuality in the Medieval Muslim history, evidences of sodomy in the Tantric rituals are some historical evidences of same-sex relationships

However, these experiences started losing their significance with the advent of Vedic Brahmanism and, later on, of British Colonialism. Giti claims that Aryan invasion dating to 1500 B.C began to suppress homosexuality through the emerging dominance of patriarchy . In the Manusmriti there are references to punishments like loss of caste, heavy monetary fines and strokes of the whip for gay and lesbian behavior. In the case of married women, it is mentioned that 'luring of maids' is to be punished by shaving the women bald, cutting of two fingers and then parading her on a donkey. Manu's specifications of more severe punishments for married women can suggest either a wide prevalence of such relationships among married women or a greater acceptance of these practices among unmarried women. In either cases, these references point to the tensions in the norms of compulsory heterosexuality prescribed by Brahmanical0 partite. Both sexual systems coexisted, despite fluctuations in relative repression and freedom, until British Colonialism when the destruction of images of homosexual expression and sexual expression in general became more systematic and blatant.

The homophobic and Victorian puritanical values regarded the display of explicit sexual images as 'pornographic and evil'. The Western view, since the time of Colonial expansion, has been strongly influenced by reproductive assumption about sexuality. These puritanical values and attitudes were in turn mapped into the interpretation of sexual activity among colonial people which is evident from the responses to all forms of 'unnatural' sexual practices. The Indian psyche accepted the Western 'moral and psychological' idea of sexuality being 'pathological' rather than the natural expression of desire, which once used to be part of Indianculture.

The last century witnessed major changes in the conception of homosexuality. Since 1974, homosexuality ceased to be considered an abnormal behaviour and was removed from the classification of mental disorder. It was also de-criminalized in different countries. Since then various states across the globe enacted anti-discriminatory or equal opportunity laws and policies to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. In 1994, South Africa became the first nation to constitutionally safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays. Canada, France, Luxembourg, Holland, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand also have similar laws. In 1996, the US Supreme Court ordered that no state could pass legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. In India, so far no such progressive changes have taken place and the homosexuals remain victims of violence in different formssupported by the state and society.

The issue of homosexual conduct has come to this fore in recent legal and political debates for three main reasons:(I). Liberalization of the law (in the U.K., by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 as amended in 2000 and some other countries by a similar legislation) has brought with it a change in social attitudes, so that the stigma attached to the homosexuality has to a greater extent disappeared.

(II). Campaigns for lesbian and gay rights especially in the U.S. have taken on an increasingly radical character, arguing for an end to all forms of discrimination against homosexuality, and even for the legalization of same sex marriages.

(III). The outbreak of HIV/AIDS which has been spread in western countries to a great extent by homosexual activity between males, has led to accusations and counter-accusations, often of a bitter kind. Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Canada in allowing same-sex marriages. Same-sex acts are punishable by death in nine countries around the world.

Arguments by those who don't want it to be legalized:This is more of a religious debate then a political one. Large number of people specially in India are opposing it, as they say it is unnatural, uncouth and immoral. Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh on asking what did he think about the Canadian law of homosexual marriages he replied it is not appreciated. Those people who are opposing it their arguments are based on religious and natural law belief. Some people don't consider them as natural because they do not produce kids. Is it sacred if gay marriage is allowed God created Adam and Eve, we never find statements in Genesis about Adam and Steve. Why break God's law by allowing gay marriage If nature wanted same-sex people to live together, there would only be one sex rather than different sexes. Our society is based on opposite sex marriage. If gay marriage is OK, then why can't I marry my cousin, or my sister, or my cat. Don't I have the same rights as gays or are they now above the rest of us. Don't forget that the law is specific on this. It was created to keep the fabric of society together. It goes against the laws of the land that have been used for hundreds of years and were based on the basis of the commandments.

How Law Deals With It In India:There is no explicit mention of homosexuality or hemophilia in any of the statute books of India. A person cannot be prosecuted for being a homosexual or hemophilic. But the sexual act of sodomy is a criminal offence. The major provisions of criminalisation of same-sex acts if found in the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860.

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and should also be liable to fine.

The offence of homosexuality is read under this section as an Unnatural Offence. The term Carnal Intercourse used in this section refers to sexual intercourse between men or in other words, homosexual relationships. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was enacted by the British in 1860.The Indian law against homosexuality seems to be too harsh. The Constitutional validity of section-377 of IPC was challenged in the Delhi High Court as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Here it may be noted that, in practically all crimes against human body listed under the Indian Penal Code, some sort of physical violence or coercion is an essential element of crime. The only exception is in the favour of section-377, which criminalizes sexual activity that leaves no victims. In the history of the statute from, 1860 in 1992 there was only 30 cases in the High Courts and Supreme Court . " The small number of cases filed under this section shows that this section is redundant and outdated and needs to be repealed

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that homosexuality cannot be legalized in India as the Indian society is intolerant to the practice of homosexuality/lesbianism. To paraphrase, three things can be said about the government's stance:

[a] the state has not just a function to, but actually a duty to stop unnatural sex, or else the social order would break down, law loose its legitimacy et al;

[b] that our society does not tolerate homosexuality, and notwithstanding the universality of human rights or the universal applicability of our fundamental rights and freedoms, its criminalization is therefore justified; and

[c] that it is really not our thing, its something that happens out there in the west, we do not have to copy that. In other words the three pillars of the classic culture arguments to criminalize the likes of us.

Why Should Be Legalized:Arguments in favour of Decriminalizing Homosexuality: Gay and lesbian rights activists from various parts of the countries were protesting for their rights and for decriminalizing the homosexual conduct. There is a big debate in our country too- whether it should be legalized or not. I am giving some of the arguments in favour of decriminalizing it, specifically in Indian context- in view of Section-377 of the Indian Penal Code.

(1). It violates right to liberty guaranteed under Article-21 of the Indian Constitution, which covers private consensual sexual relations. The fundamental right to liberty (under Article-21) prohibits the state from interfering with the private personal activities of the individual

. The concept of privacy is so broad that no comprehensive and all encompassing definition of the term can be given. In the case National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian equality V. Ministry of Justice , the South African court held that, Privacy recognizes that we all have a right to a sphere of private intimacy and autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human relationships without interference from the outside community. Even at the international level, the right to privacy has been recognized in the favour of lesbians and gay man.

(2). Criminalization of homosexual conduct is unreasonable and arbitrary:Infringement of, the right to equal protection before law requires the determination of whether there is a rational and objective basis to the classification introduced. There should be a just and reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Section-377 of IPC, its legislative objective is to criminalize all the sexual activities which are against the order of nature, thus punishing the unnatural sex. Section-377 assumes that natural sexual act is that which is performed for procreation. Hence, it thereby labels all forms of non-procreative sexual act as unnatural. This gives a very narrow view to the distinction between the procreative and non-procreative sexual act. Hence, the legislative intent of creating a public code of sexual morality has no rational nexus with the classification created. Further the very object of the section is vague, unreasonable, arbitrary and based up on the stereotyped notion that sex is only for procreation. Now if this presumption is accepted is correct then, what justifies the policies of family planning and the use of the contraceptive devices

(3). Section-377 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation:forbidden under Article-15 of the Constitution. Article-15 prohibits discrimination on several grounds, which includes Sex. By prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, article-15 establishes that there is no standard behavioral pattern attached to the gender. The prohibition on non-procreative sexual acts imposed by section-377 prescribes traditional sexual relations upon men and women. In so doing the provision discriminates against the homosexuals on the basis of their sexuality and therefore constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

(4). Section-377 violates the enjoyment of civil laws and gay men and lesbians and leads to other adverse effects: Section-292 of IPC punishes Obscenity; the current definition of obscenity can lead it to incriminate the gay and lesbian writings. As male homosexuality is a criminal offence, the presumption is that it is something depraved and can corrupt the minds and bodies of the persons. In the prevailing atmosphere any writing about the lesbians and the gay men can be criminalized, as homosexuality is treated as something immoral or depraved. The workman's Compensation Act, 1923- provides that in case of death caused by injury at the work place, the dependents of the employee are entitled to receive the compensation from the employer, the dependents will include a widow, minor legitimate son, unmarried daughter, widowed mother and an infirm son or daughter.

Thus a gay or a lesbian couple cannot claim the benefits under this section. This is not an isolated example and there are other such Acts that are discriminatory towards homosexuals. The Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and the Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 define family in such away that a lesbian or gay couple. I end this issue with a quote ?There are several sections in the Indian Penal Code which are anachronistic in a changed world. Section 377 is a prime example. As a matter of fact, Section 377 as it stands, would have made what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky or rather what Monica Lewinsky provided to Clinton, an offence. I am being discreet, because after all, some things can only be dealt with orally and cannot be put down on paper! The crucial words are "against the order of nature." The possibilities are immense and the imagination can well run riot. Perhaps the way out is now to argue that nature and its various orders have themselves changed.

Why There Is Need For Legal Recognition:A recent study of sexual practices in rural India by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) found that `male-to-male sex is not uncommon. In fact a higher percentage of men in the study reported having male-to-male sex than sex with sex workers. This was true of both married as well as unmarried men. Close to 10 per cent unmarried men and 3 per cent married men reported having had sexual intercourse with other men in the past 12 months." The survey covered 50 villages in five districts of five states with feedback on sexual practices from close to 3,000 respondents and in- depth interviews on intimate habits from 250 people. The data is indicative of a reality the government is either unable or unwilling to see.

Love is love. The real threat to marriage is the alarmingly high divorce rate. Marriage is also a legal joining of two individuals. People who are not religious choose to get married in a registry office and not in church. Marriage shows the strongest commitment you can make to one another. Gay men and lesbians are just as human and have the same needs and desires as heterosexual human beings. I fail to see what God has to do with this Marriage in this instance is not religious, but a legal joining. Getting married is the ultimate way of showing your love and commitment to your partner, so why should gay people be deprived of this right. Who are we to sit and judge anyway. Same sex marriages should be legalized. If people find gay relationships contrary to their religion, it is up to them to refrain. Those who do not share their religious opinions should be free to make their own choice on this as on other issues. Gay men and lesbians are just as human and have the same needs and desires as heterosexual human beings.

The argument that same sex marriages should not be made legal "because they do not produce kids" is ridiculous. Should heterosexual couples over 50 not be allowed to marry as they cannot produce kids either? If two people love each other and want to unite their destinies, then it is a beautiful thing which should be celebrated. Whether it is called "marriage" or "life pact" does not matter. Same-sex unions harm no one; one's support or opposition to this is a matter of personal belief and morality, with which the government has no business to interfere.

The universality of Human rights demands that prevailing and dominant cultural and social norms cannot be invoked in a manner as to circumvent or restrain fundamental and constitutional rights. If we were to accept the government's arguments in the Delhi high court case, then many of the progressive legislations in my country would never have been enacted. For example, even today there are many men who think that tradition gives them a right to beat up their wives, or that they deserve to get a very fat dowry just because they were born with a penis. If we give in to these cultural beliefs, then there is nothing to turn round the legislations that we have made to stop violence against women or dowry and dowry related deaths.

ConclusionOn the basis of the whole discussion on the aspect of same sex marriage that is Should it be legalized or not. This is more of a religious debate then a political one. In which I have given my arguments in favour of decriminalizing it, I finally conclude by saying that homosexuality is not an offence, it is just a way of pursuit of happiness, a way to achieve sexual happiness or desire. I can see absolutely no reason, apart from blind prejudice, which prevents two gay people going through a civil ceremony which will give them the rights and securities which heterosexual couples enjoy. Marriage is a sign of commitment and love. If two men or two women want to show that commitment, how does that destroy or damage the ideals of marriage. In my view, it clearly demonstrates it. Aren't we living in an age which respects the individual's right to choose Isn't India supposed to be the land of the free In our society people have branded homosexuals as queer. Yet homosexuality is not new nor is it against the Indian culture, it has always existed and with much lesser prosecution, that under Section-377 of the IPC, which is based on British Offences against the Persons Act.

What should be the right approach to deal with same sex marriages, the issues are quite vast and complex. However, the desirability and feasibility of such an approach remain to be ascertained. In any event there is a growing conviction that our present method of criminalizing the same sex sexual activity neither helps the homosexuals nor protects the society in general. We thus need to legitimate same sex marriages in order to move forward in the direction of human rights.

Posted by sabari at 1:14 AM

Money Laundering in India

Money Laundering in India

India is a major international financial and legal centre, with a strong reputation for honesty and integrity. Unfortunately that is why financial and professional businesses, like banks and solicitors’ firms, are attractive to money launderers – criminals and politicians who sometimes try to hide stolen money and money received as bribe by turning it into legitimate income. The government has introduced measures:

What is Money Laundering?

Money laundering is the process by which large amounts of illegally obtained money (from drug trafficking, terrorist activity or other serious crimes specifically by politicians after granting projects or doing some favor to the corporate as in the case of Andhra pradesh ) is given the appearance of having originated from a legitimate source. But in simple terms it is the Conversion of Black money into white money. This takes you back to cleaning the huge piles of cash. Indian newspapers frequently report the money laundering scams perpetrated by the Political leaders and some of the prominent stars are the chief ministers of UP, Punjab and Kerala. UP chief minister ms. Mayawati as per the Indian Express reports used some innovative techniques to launder the money by avoiding the tax in legitimate manner. She accepted the donations from persons who were road side heroes. When CBI raided these guys were found in no position to donate huge sums for political motives.

Other Indian star in the laundering Business is Ketan Parekh. It is believed that he shifted the proceeds of money received from the BoI pay order scam to various tax heavens and ultimately in the Swiss Banks. These transactions are believed to be just the tip of the iceberg. If done successfully, it allows the criminals to maintain and have control over their proceeds and ultimately to provide a legitimate cover for their source of income. Money laundering plays a fundamental role in facilitating the ambitions of the drug trafficker, the terrorist, the organized criminal, the insider dealer, the tax evader as well as the many others who need to avoid the kind of attention from the authorities that sudden wealth brings from illegal activities. By engaging in this type of activity it is hoped to place the proceeds beyond the reach of any asset forfeiture laws.

The new scenario introduced into money laundering in India is Protected Shell company system. The chief Minster of Andhra Mr .Y.S.R had found this innovative method and there are allegations that some thousands of crores have been misappropriated.

A protected cell company is a corporate entity which holds assets in one or more segregated cells. The purpose of such a structure is to separate the assets in each cell from those in the other cells. In this way companies that are perhaps not large enough to form a captive in their own right may, for example, use a "captive"-type structure.
The assets of each cell must be kept separate and be separately identifiable from both the company's non-cellular assets and from assets attributable to other cells. In particular, cellular assets are only available to satisfy the creditors of the company, who are creditors in respect of that cell. He created some 14 companies and the funds were poured into the country through these companies. Thus he was successful in converting the entire black money into official white money.


As per IMF reports the turnover of this industry could be somewhere around $1.5 trillion. However common man does not pay attention because primarily it seems to be a victimless crime.

It has none of the issues associated with a vanishing of the money from economy or performance of the government or organizations involved in the same and yet, money laundering can only take place after a predicate crime (such as a Drug trafficking or the stock market frauds) has taken place. If the person on the street is the banker he might throw the three letters "KYC" to express his knowledge.

Effective Guilty Pleading

Effective Guilty Pleading
A lot of people enter guilty pleas as a means to save time and avoid a lengthy trial. By doing this, they are saying they did whatever they have been accused of doing, which may not actually be the case. It is extremely important to consult a lawyer even when you intend to plead guilty.
Lawyers can determine the veracity of evidence posed against you. Even if you are guilty, there are times when the Crown may not have enough evidence to prove that you are. It is best to retain an attorney in every legal matter, even if you are intending to plead guilty. In these situations, your lawyer may be able to get the case dropped or a plea deal.
Once you find a lawyer, the next step is to determine if you even should plead guilty. Your lawyer can look at all the pertinent evidence and use their previous experience to decide how the court case will play out. This may mean an acquittal on technicalities. For example, if the Crown acquired all of their evidence through an illegal search and seizure, your lawyer can file a motion to the judge to get it thrown out and the case dropped. If the Crown’s evidence is strong, your attorney can discuss the situation with the state’s attorney and possibly agree upon a plea deal.
Plea deals can be the best of both worlds. They are almost guaranteed to be a lesser punishment than that of a conviction while relieving you of a guilty conscious. Plea deals also save precious time litigating and allow you to get back to your normal daily routine. Many variables go into plea deal arrangements. For example, if this crime was your first offense, the severity of the crime, is the evidence substantial enough to prove you caused the crime, and extramural factors that surround the case.
It may seem smart and honest at the time to plead guilty, because you know you are guilty and want to get the proceedings over with as soon as possible, but it is important that you talk to a lawyer first. They will guide you through the process and help you avoid any excess heartache the case may cause. Your attorney is able to explain what exactly you will be pleading guilty to and the implications of doing so and find some alternative methods to pursue in your case that will benefit you in the long run.

Employment Laws of USA

Employment rights –Employee use of lie detector in USA


The cornerstone that protects the employee and limits the employer is the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. This act states that the polygraph test can be used only by Federal, State and local government employers. Private employers can use the test only if their business is security or they are authorized to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances.

The employer cannot even suggest that the employee (prospective employee) takes a polygraph test without a serious reason. The Act defines the following reasons - theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage. In general it can be grouped as investigations involving economic loss or injury to the employer’s business. If one of the situations has occurred and the employee is one of the suspects, then the employer needs to do few things before requesting the test. First of all he needs to be sure that the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation or he is related to the occurred accident. The employer also must inform the suspected employee about the test, employees’ rights and provide a document, which has a basis for requesting the examination. The document must be signed by an authorized representative of the company.

The Act allows the employee to terminate the test anytime. The person who is providing the test must be a qualified and licensed polygraph examiner who is bonded or carries sufficient liability insurance. The results of the test have a limited disclosure. The employee can’t be asked about his personal life, political or religious beliefs and legal activities involving unions or labor organizations. If any of the employees’ rights were violated during the test, he can sue the employer for the violation of the Act.

So basically we see that an employee is full protected from the evil machine called lie detector. But if we look at it more seriously the employee seems to be a bit overprotected. A lie detector is helping to determine only if the employee is lying to certain questions, not his personal life or some hidden secrets. Basically if and employee has made a mistake or committed fraud and he wants to cover himself in court with lawyer, there is no way to make a lie detector test simple. He can terminate the test and the case will go up to the court where the prosecution will demand such a test. The protection of the employee can turn a simple procedure into a few months of courts. But if we take a deeper look into history of the working class in general we will see decades of lawyers on employees’ behalf fighting for the rights of the working people. So this small overprotection today is a direct result from the greediness and cruelty of the first employers.