I was offered a bribe of Rs. 14 crore, says Army Chief

[JAYRAM]

Tatra money trail leads to tax haven

Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, April 2, 2012, DHNS:

CBI finds firm's ownership structure mired in mystery

The profits made by Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, owned by Vectra Ltd chief Ravinder Kumar Rishi, who has been questioned by the CBI in the case alleging BEML"ˆ"fraudulently assigning" a contract involving Tatra trucks to his company, are suspected to have found their way to Liechtenstein, a western European tax haven.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is looking into the ownership structure of Tatra Sipox, located in Richmond, Surrey, in the UK, has found that it is mired in mystery.

An examination of the web of "shell" companies shows that its main ownership leads to Liechtenstein through a company called Deswa Holding Establishment which owns 99 per cent of Venus Projects Ltd in which too Rishi has a stake. As of December 2009, the ownership of Tatra Sipox was between one Mrs Bozen Durdovicoca, Slovakian citizen, who owned 50 per cent shares and Venus Projects (Hong Kong)"ˆLtd which also had 50 per cent stake. Inquiries revealed that Tatra Sipox, which was originally incorporated in 1994, was promoted by one Jozef Majsky of Cervenova in Bratislava, Slovakia and Venus Projects UK Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Hong Kong. Venus Projects Ltd's address has been shown to be 2 Brentford Business Centre, Brentford Middle.

Czech newspapers have extensively reported that Majsky, a very rich Slovak, was a few years ago imprisoned for 22 months on the charge of defrauding people who had invested in two companies BMG"ˆInvest and Horizont Slovakia. In 1995-96, Venus Projects Ltd transferred its entire shareholding in favour of Jupiter Exports PTE"ˆLtd, based in North Bridge Road, Singapore. Jupiter Exports in turn transferred its shareholding to Durdovicoca. On the other hand, the founder shareholder Majsky transferred his shares in favour of Venus Projects Ltd Hong Kong in 2008-2009.

Although a few years ago the original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, Tatra a.s., showed Venus Projects Ltd as its agent for selling Tatra vehicles in India, Venus Projects dissociated itself from Tatra Sipox and transferred its share to Jupiter Exports.

Knowledageable sources said that way back in 1994-95, as a supplier to the Indian armed forces, Venus Projects was allegedly blacklisted by the Ministry of Defence. In 2011, Venus Projects' showed it was located at Cawdor Crescent, in Hamwell, London.
According to records Deccan Herald obtained from the Companies House, UK, atra Sipox was originally incorporated for the purpose of "representation", but subsequently switched to miscellaneous services such as "spiritual, religious and social, including marriage and dating services." The company's annual returns, filed on March 25, 2012, show that Vectra Ltd holds 15,000 shares. Its "abbreviated" accounts of October 2010 show that for the year ending 2010, the company was entitled to exemption under specific provisions of the British Companies Act, 2006 and it was also not required to obtain an audit.

Venus Projects Ltd (company number FC013931) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Ltd, Hong Kong, whose ownership structure reveals that another Hong Kong-based firm, Descona Ltd, holds one share while Deswa Holdings Establishment, based in Valduz in Liechtenstein holds 99,999 shares. Verification of Descona Ltd's ownership revealed that its owner was Seconda Ltd, Central Hong Kong, holding 99 shares.

The balance share is held by Anscode, Central Hong Kong. Suprisingly, Seconda Ltd is in turn owned by Descona Ltd. The addresses of Desconas, Seconda and Ancode is the same -- 6th Floor Alexandra House, Central Hong Kong. As for Deswa Holdings, the trail dries up in Liechtenstein.

Knowledgeable sources suspect that since Venus Projects Hong Kong is owned by Deswa Holding, its profits would have gone to Liechtenstein beyond which there is no information to show where the money might have been funelled.

Significant amount

As Deswa Holding held 99.99 per cent of Venus Projects, sources suspect a significant amount would have found its way into the tax haven and beyond.

Sources said it is misleading to make any claims that Tatra Sipox has a majority stake in the original Czech Tatra a.s, which makes Ravinder Kumar Rishi of Vectra an investor and not the manufacturer of Tatra trucks as it has claimed in its letter to the Ministry of Defence on March 28, 2012, seeking permission for sanction to prosecute the Chief of Army Staf Gen V"ˆK"ˆSingh.

Tatra Sipox's claim

The letter says:"ˆ"As you are aware our company is a producer and original equipment manufacturer (OEM)"ˆof Tatra trucks presently being used by the Indian Army in several sensitive applications."

Despite these claims, Tatra a.s., as its website says, "is one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world. It has always been situated in KopÅ™ivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region."

A May 2002 sales invoice drawn on Tatra Sipox clearly indicates that the BEML's order of 35 Tatra trucks chassis was given to Tatra Sipox which was neither the manufacturer nor a single share was / is owned by Tatra a.s, the OEM.

The previous chairman of BEML K"ˆAprameyan in an annual general body meeting of 2002 said that Tatra Sipox was a marketing arm of the Czech company. But V"ˆR"ˆS"ˆNatarajan in an earlier press statement had claimed that Tatra Sipox was a Slovakian company.

The order for the 35 chassis was in dollar terms and amounted to $1,855,000 which, according to the exchange rate at that time, meant that each truck was purchased for about Rs 28 lakh a piece.

Industry sources said that even if there was a price escalation of 5 per cent per year, the Tatra trucks would cost about Rs 40 lakh now.

Tatra money trail leads to tax haven


Will this end up with the Gandhi's?...

 

[Bhadra]

Must watch:

[video]http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/245156/the-truth-about-tatra-deal-whats-the-inside-story.html[/video]

 

[Ray]

The can of worms have opened.

 

[Bhadra]

Eastern Command's trial reports on Tatra in North Sikkim not forwarded and not publicised is another scams which may trouble someone I suppose !

 

[Yusuf]

Tatra money trail leads to tax haven

Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, April 2, 2012, DHNS:

CBI finds firm's ownership structure mired in mystery

The profits made by Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, owned by Vectra Ltd chief Ravinder Kumar Rishi, who has been questioned by the CBI in the case alleging BEML"ˆ"fraudulently assigning" a contract involving Tatra trucks to his company, are suspected to have found their way to Liechtenstein, a western European tax haven.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is looking into the ownership structure of Tatra Sipox, located in Richmond, Surrey, in the UK, has found that it is mired in mystery.

An examination of the web of "shell" companies shows that its main ownership leads to Liechtenstein through a company called Deswa Holding Establishment which owns 99 per cent of Venus Projects Ltd in which too Rishi has a stake. As of December 2009, the ownership of Tatra Sipox was between one Mrs Bozen Durdovicoca, Slovakian citizen, who owned 50 per cent shares and Venus Projects (Hong Kong)"ˆLtd which also had 50 per cent stake. Inquiries revealed that Tatra Sipox, which was originally incorporated in 1994, was promoted by one Jozef Majsky of Cervenova in Bratislava, Slovakia and Venus Projects UK Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Hong Kong. Venus Projects Ltd's address has been shown to be 2 Brentford Business Centre, Brentford Middle.

Czech newspapers have extensively reported that Majsky, a very rich Slovak, was a few years ago imprisoned for 22 months on the charge of defrauding people who had invested in two companies BMG"ˆInvest and Horizont Slovakia. In 1995-96, Venus Projects Ltd transferred its entire shareholding in favour of Jupiter Exports PTE"ˆLtd, based in North Bridge Road, Singapore. Jupiter Exports in turn transferred its shareholding to Durdovicoca. On the other hand, the founder shareholder Majsky transferred his shares in favour of Venus Projects Ltd Hong Kong in 2008-2009.

Although a few years ago the original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, Tatra a.s., showed Venus Projects Ltd as its agent for selling Tatra vehicles in India, Venus Projects dissociated itself from Tatra Sipox and transferred its share to Jupiter Exports.

Knowledageable sources said that way back in 1994-95, as a supplier to the Indian armed forces, Venus Projects was allegedly blacklisted by the Ministry of Defence. In 2011, Venus Projects' showed it was located at Cawdor Crescent, in Hamwell, London.
According to records Deccan Herald obtained from the Companies House, UK, atra Sipox was originally incorporated for the purpose of "representation", but subsequently switched to miscellaneous services such as "spiritual, religious and social, including marriage and dating services." The company's annual returns, filed on March 25, 2012, show that Vectra Ltd holds 15,000 shares. Its "abbreviated" accounts of October 2010 show that for the year ending 2010, the company was entitled to exemption under specific provisions of the British Companies Act, 2006 and it was also not required to obtain an audit.

Venus Projects Ltd (company number FC013931) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Ltd, Hong Kong, whose ownership structure reveals that another Hong Kong-based firm, Descona Ltd, holds one share while Deswa Holdings Establishment, based in Valduz in Liechtenstein holds 99,999 shares. Verification of Descona Ltd's ownership revealed that its owner was Seconda Ltd, Central Hong Kong, holding 99 shares.

The balance share is held by Anscode, Central Hong Kong. Suprisingly, Seconda Ltd is in turn owned by Descona Ltd. The addresses of Desconas, Seconda and Ancode is the same -- 6th Floor Alexandra House, Central Hong Kong. As for Deswa Holdings, the trail dries up in Liechtenstein.

Knowledgeable sources suspect that since Venus Projects Hong Kong is owned by Deswa Holding, its profits would have gone to Liechtenstein beyond which there is no information to show where the money might have been funelled.

Significant amount

As Deswa Holding held 99.99 per cent of Venus Projects, sources suspect a significant amount would have found its way into the tax haven and beyond.

Sources said it is misleading to make any claims that Tatra Sipox has a majority stake in the original Czech Tatra a.s, which makes Ravinder Kumar Rishi of Vectra an investor and not the manufacturer of Tatra trucks as it has claimed in its letter to the Ministry of Defence on March 28, 2012, seeking permission for sanction to prosecute the Chief of Army Staf Gen V"ˆK"ˆSingh.

Tatra Sipox's claim

The letter says:"ˆ"As you are aware our company is a producer and original equipment manufacturer (OEM)"ˆof Tatra trucks presently being used by the Indian Army in several sensitive applications."

Despite these claims, Tatra a.s., as its website says, "is one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world. It has always been situated in KopÅ™ivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region."

A May 2002 sales invoice drawn on Tatra Sipox clearly indicates that the BEML's order of 35 Tatra trucks chassis was given to Tatra Sipox which was neither the manufacturer nor a single share was / is owned by Tatra a.s, the OEM.

The previous chairman of BEML K"ˆAprameyan in an annual general body meeting of 2002 said that Tatra Sipox was a marketing arm of the Czech company. But V"ˆR"ˆS"ˆNatarajan in an earlier press statement had claimed that Tatra Sipox was a Slovakian company.

The order for the 35 chassis was in dollar terms and amounted to $1,855,000 which, according to the exchange rate at that time, meant that each truck was purchased for about Rs 28 lakh a piece.

Industry sources said that even if there was a price escalation of 5 per cent per year, the Tatra trucks would cost about Rs 40 lakh now.

Tatra money trail leads to tax haven


Will this end up with the Gandhi's?...

Fantastic. Need to learn how these people complex web of holding companies and share holding patterns. Absolutely criminally brilliant!!!

 

[bengalraider]

Fantastic. Need to learn how these people complex web of holding companies and share holding patterns. Absolutely criminally brilliant!!!

I agree with your assessment there
I'd love to own a a ROLLS or two sometime as well

 

[Ray]

Tatra deal: Did Defence PSU BEML act like a middleman? --Videos India:IBNLive Videos

See this.

Heard what the Brig said - the BEML chap said how will the Def PSU survive if the Army does not buy.

Same is the case with the DRDO.

That much for self sufficiency and indigenisation that all talk about. It is a hogwash and what is asked is to support inefficient organisations that only get flabbier and useless.

 

[Bhadra]

So Army, Navy and Air Forces are just a captive markets and users for PSU, DRDO and MoD for their "Loot - Khasoot" and Defense of India a reasons to bloat black money stshed and exchanged in tax heavens abroad.

No wonder VKS did not get such a support from the retired lots as their could be mouse in the paints !

Remember - Loot and Scoot !

 

[Bhadra]

Who is Lt-Gen Tejinder Singh?
Who is Lt-Gen Tejinder Singh?

MADHAV NALAPAT NEW DELHI | 6th Mar


Those involved in the making of purchases for security agencies under the Home Ministry or the PMO say that retired Lt-General Tejinder Singh,who has been explicitly accused by the Army of having floated reports that Chief of Army Staff General V K Singh spied on Defense Minister A K Antony, is not an unknown figure within the world of suppliers of equipment. One source said that Tejinder Singh "operates in tandem with a Major Hooda (retd) and his son, both of whom are well known to Karthik Chidambaram,the influential son of Home Minister P Chidambaram". The younger Hooda, a presumed relative of the Haryana Chief Minister, is alleged to be "active in promoting the products of certain agencies, including foreign entities". These sources claim that Tejinder Singh was very close to a former Chief of Army Staff and that he "knows the incoming Chief of Army Staff,Lt-General Bikramjit Singh, very well". None of these claims could be verified,especially suggestions that a such link "could influence procurement decisions by the Army in the future". General V K Singh is known to have had a series of battles with established cartels involved in military procurement,unlike some of his predecessors,who "played along with such elements". That the incoming Chief of Army Staff has very powerful support within the UPA was made clear by the government's decision to announce that he would succeed General V K Singh,even if the latter were to quit prematurely. It needs to be said that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is widely regarded as a capable officer,with an excellent record in counter-insurgency operations.

Surprisingly,the CBI has thus far not shown any interest in investigating the many allegations that Lt-General Tejinder Singh,Major Hooda and others are involved in efforts to influence procurement decisions in the Home and Defense Ministries,besides those in NTRO,RAW and the Aviation Research Service. Reports of suspicious transactions in these agencies have been buried under a carpet of official indifference. By avoiding an enquiry, what has happened is that the miasma of suspicion that is hovering over the head of Karthik Chidambaram is continuing. Numerous sources allege "undue attention and interest" by the young politician in matters relating to equipment suggested as being needed for national security. There is every likelihood that such charges against Karthik are false, and motivated by jealously at his swift rise in business and politics. However, given the clout of the Home Minister in matters relating to promotions of IPS officers,the inaction of the CBI has given rise to speculation about the agency's motivation in rejecting an enquiry. Interestingly,a source claims that "one of the national security agencies of the Government of India recently asked for an enquiry into Hooda and Singh by both CBI and IB",but to no avail, "as high-level circles shield the two" . The Army has finally come out in the open about the mysterious retired armyman,who moves in very influential circles in Delhi,and directly tied him to the ongoing - and vicious - campaign against General Singh. It needs to be added that Defense Minister A K Antony has thus far kept himself scrupulously away from this campaign,although he has endorsed the view that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is the fittest officer to be the new COAS.

Sources tracking procurement within the services are,in the words of a senior officer, afraid that "once the new Chief of Army Staff takes office,enquiries initiated by General Singh may get discontinued",thereby enabling officers guilty of graft and worse to escape. Hopefully,such a suspicion will be shown to be unfounded,come June 1,2012,and that the new Chief of Army Staff will continue the house-cleaning initiated by his predecessor. General Bikramjit Singh needs to show that he is in the tradition of those fighting graft,rather than in that of certain predecessors who are known to have done the opposite.

 

[Bhadra]

So It is Hooda, his relatives, Chiddamabaram and his Son who are leading the Coup ?

 

[Ray]

hese sources claim that Tejinder Singh was very close to a former Chief of Army Staff and that he "knows the incoming Chief of Army Staff,Lt-General Bikramjit Singh, very well". None of these claims could be verified,especially suggestions that a such link "could influence procurement decisions by the Army in the future".

hat the incoming Chief of Army Staff has very powerful support within the UPA was made clear by the government's decision to announce that he would succeed General V K Singh,even if the latter were to quit prematurely.

These parts makes me wonder!

 

[Ray]

Tejinder Singh is also a Hooda!

I wonder if the cases initiated by the current Chief will be pursued.

Once he retires, it will become business as usual.

Very few like to rock the boat since the end result is what the current Chief is facing!

 

[lemontree]

There is an article in today's rediff webpage - Revealed: The real story behind CBI's Tatra probe - Rediff.com India News
It states that the CBI was on the Tatra trail from a very long time.

They only reacted now because of the Defexpo which drew all the armed dealers to India.
Ravi Rishi is a British citizen and not an NRI, so extradition from UK would have been very difficult.

How much of this is true?

 

[Aditya Mookerjee]

We all know, the reported integrity of the army chief. That someone offered him a bribe, is very important to the government, but, how am I a civilian, interested, when I am convinced about the integrity of the Chief? The people of India know, what is not of immediate concern. But the government knows, that the people know.

 

[Bhadra]

How to buy a battle-ready military
How to buy a battle-ready military - Indian Express

Amitabha Pande : Thu Apr 05 2012, 00:17 hrs

The defence procurement system needs radical reform to address corruption


In the media frenzy generated by General V.K. Singh's not-so-startling revelations, our genius for muddling issues and focussing on their more salacious aspects has once again become evident. Knee-jerk reactions, like the reference of the Tatra procurements to the CBI, will ensure the flaws in the decision-making process remain unaddressed and the opportunity for serious and radical systemic reforms is again passed over.

There are several distinct sets of issues the current episode throws up , all of which deserve separate analyses.This essay confines itself to the issue of corruption in defence procurements. Why does it occur and what is special about corruption in defence? Where does it occur and relatedly, how does it occur?

The issue of "why" is complex. Many reasons make it different from corruption elsewhere. The market is what is called monopsonistic, that is, a monopoly on the demand side, rather than the supply side, and monopolies of both kinds can be pernicious. Paradoxically, however, given the uncertainties and the whimsies of the market, the number of suppliers is also limited. This necessarily leads to an unhealthy relationship between the buyer and the supplier, which veers between being cosy and crony-like to being tense and adversarial. The risks involved are considerable and therefore the need for intermediation often necessary. Security concerns necessitate a veil of secrecy on defence acquisitions, making it difficult to apply the rules of transparency applicable elsewhere. Perversely, the need for confidentiality also becomes an excuse for conducting business in devious and furtive ways.

The nature of the market, therefore, is one that provides fertile breeding ground for corrupt practices. What increases the complexity is the tortuous system of procurement designed by the Indian bureaucracy on the famous CYA principle, which ensures that multiple opportunities for charging rent arise, and that this rent has to be paid and is paid, irrespective of who one chooses to buy from and irrespective of there being honest jokers in the pack at different levels. Procedures intended to prevent foul play ironically achieve the opposite, with illicit payments being made simply for play to happen — foul or fair.

Which brings us to the question of "how", but before that let us look at the interesting issue of "where". There are three separate tracks that all procurements in the defence ministry go through, and each of these tracks has a bewildering multiplicity of hurdles .

The first is demand estimation, demand vetting, demand projection and inter se priority determination. This exercise is in the domain of the SHQ. It is here that decisions are taken on the volumes required and the inter se priority to be accorded to the items to be procured within available budgets. It is astonishing how unpredictable this can be. Capital intensive production capacities set up at huge costs on the basis of long-term, sustained demand go abegging for orders simply because a new army chief changes priorities, or a transaction does not go in favour of the desired party, or because the one projecting the demand does not like the face of the supplier. As no one can be penalised for not wanting to buy, huge sums are paid simply to sustain demand, especially when it comes to repeat orders.

The second is technical — from framing the general staff qualitative requirements, to preparing engineering specifications, technical trials, user trials and techno-commercial evaluations before the procurement process commences, and the entire spectrum of post-contract activities related to quality inspections, controls and quality assurance. This is the jealously-guarded turf of the SHQ, which brooks no outside interference. The procedural labyrinth that any supplier has to go through to have his product declared technically acceptable is Kafkaesque and offers limitless rent-seeking opportunities. Being a purely technical matter, neither the processes nor the practices are audited or subjected to independent professional scrutiny.

The third is actual procurement, where the onus shifts to the ministry and the dreaded babu. Here, there is a well-established hierarchy of rent collectors along the approval chain. The approval cycle itself is so complicated and so lengthy that the opportunity for each functionary or facilitator to collect his share of the booty along the nuisance value chain is maximised. At no stage does anyone need to circumvent or short circuit the procedure, because following the procedure itself provides the opportunity. The bidders open a kind of letter of credit with the established chain of rent collectors before the procurement process begins and as each stage of the transaction is crossed, the rent gets automatically paid at the appropriate level. At the apex of the decision-making chain is the chief collector — who could be the minister, prime minister, or a confidante of either — who gets the highest share of the rent. It matters little who wins an order, because payment is made for the final approval being granted, not for deciding in anyone's favour.

What can be done? First, devolve and delegate clear and full decision-making authority for procurements down the chain of command. Restrict the role of the ministry to procurement of major weapons systems and platforms. Have a clear hierarchy of budget holders who are fully responsible within their budgets to take all decisions for achieving budgeted outcomes. Second, simplify procedures, moving from administrative controls and restrictions to budget-based methods of control. Third, enhance the level of discretion available to the decision-makers rather than reduce or constrict it. Trust a group of competent men to weigh the pros and cons of each option and take a decision they feel is in the best interests of all stakeholders. Guarantee them complete protection from any allegations of misuse of trust.

Four, distinguish between middlemen who perform a genuine service for the supplier and the deal fixers, and give the former legal recognition and allow them free and easy access to decision-makers, making interactions with them transparent and aboveboard. Five, make a transition from engineering solution-based specifications to critical performance parameters. Share these parameters with potential suppliers and test product performance against these parameters. Six, integrate the departments of defence production and defence research with the department of defence and privatise defence PSUs, ordnance factories and defence labs by converting them into widely-held public limited companies answerable to their shareholders for performance, thereby encouraging a shift from pure 'buy' decisions, to 'buy and make' decisions from a customer-friendly industry.

While this may appear too radical an agenda, the kind of changes in procurement policies and systems that have been attempted so far have managed to achieve the impossible — deterred the honest from taking any decision and paralysed the system and, paradoxically, substantially increased the opportunities for the dishonest to eke out his rent from a vast new range of hurdles that a supplier has to go through to secure business. Only radical reform can break this deadlock.



The writer is a former secretary to the government and handled army procurement in the 1990s

 

[SADAKHUSH]

The can of worms have opened.

Since the cat is out of the bag, where these worms end up will be interesting. I hope this puts an end to dynastic rule in India once for all.

 

[Bhadra]

Ha Ha Ha...... These scams finds a place in Astrology too......]
Vedic Astrology Articl Journal of Astrology: Defense Scandal after Scandal

 

[Ray]

Watch this space!

 

[Ray]

Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
Round about the cauldron go;

In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe 30
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

 

[Bhadra]

Murky forces that are targeting Gen VK Singh
Seema Mustafa | Friday, April 6, 2012


Murky forces that are targeting Gen VK Singh - Analysis - DNA