UK Tribunal ruling on UBS brings rich Indians under lens

May 31, 2012

USB_brings_rich

Mumbai, May 31: Sachin Karpe would have never imagined that an innocuous $5,000 transfer from a friend's UBS offshore bank account to his personal bank account in Mumbai would come back to haunt him and the wealth advisory business his wife, along with three others, runs in the city.

The unidentified NRI friend, who was travelling to India, had moved the money from his UBS account to Karpe's account in a European bank's Mumbai branch. This single transaction triggered investigations that backfired on UBS and pointed out how Karpe and his colleagues helped ADAG entities violate Indian securities regulations.

Also, for the first time, the role that Swiss banks play in irregular transactions in Indian stock markets came to the fore.

"The use of FII structures for Indian resident investors was commonplace within UBS and that was well known to senior management," said the UK Upper Tribunal verdict in the case Karpe vs FSA, the British regulator.

The FII structure, set up by UBS, used funds from the Swiss bank's accounts to invest in offshore derivatives issued against stocks of ADAG group companies. The tribunal ruling has deepened suspicions of sharp practices that wealthy Indians and local business houses often indulge in.

"The FII structures were in relatively widespread use within UBS; for example, there had been 14 "cells" of the fund and only one had been the subject of the present allegation of misconduct," said the tribunal.

UBS Distances Itself

Multi-cell FIIs - through which select investors could route money separately without revealing their identities - were banned a few years ago when the Indian capital market regulator had a whiff of such transactions.

But, when ET contacted UBS, the bank preferred to distance itself from these transactions. Mark Panday, a Hong Kong-based spokesman for UBS said, "The fund structures used by the former employees in London during the relevant period were not approved or permitted by UBS."

"The conduct of Ms (Laila) Karan (who worked at the Asia-II desk) and Mr Karpe was in clear breach of UBS policies and procedures. Both Ms Karan and Mr Karpe were dismissed by UBS for gross misconduct. UBS has fully co-operated with the regulatory action taken by the FSA against them and notes the decisions of the Upper Tribunal to uphold that action. We are satisfied with the outcome and this matter is now closed," he said.

Like UBS, Altamount Capital, the wealth management and family office shop that Sachin Karpe's wife Richa runs would like to distance itself from the former Swiss Bank official. "Sachin has no direct connection with Altamount Capital in any manner barring that he is a consultant with Altamount," she told ET some time back.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 12,2024

ikramuddinkamil.jpg

The Taliban regime has appointed Ikramuddin Kamil as the acting consul in the Afghan mission in Mumbai, Afghan media has reported.

It is the first such appointment made by the Taliban set up to any Afghan mission in India.

There was no immediate comment from the Indian side on the appointment that came.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan has announced the appointment of Kamil as the acting consul in Mumbai, the Taliban-controlled Bakhtar News Agency reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources.

"He is currently in Mumbai, where he is fulfilling his duties as a diplomat representing the Islamic Emirate," it said.

The appointment is part of Kabul's efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with India and enhance its presence abroad, the media outlet said

Kamil holds a PhD degree in international law and previously served as the deputy director in the department of security cooperation and border affairs in the foreign ministry, it said.

He is expected to facilitate consular services and represent the interests of Afghanistan in India, the report added.

Kamil's appointment comes days after the external affairs ministry's point-person for Afghanistan held talks with the Taliban's acting defence minister, Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, in Kabul.

Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister for political affairs, also posted on X about Kamil's appointment.

The appointment of Kamil is seen as part of efforts to facilitate consular services to the Afghan population in Mumbai.

There has been almost negligible presence of diplomatic staff at the Afghan missions in India.

Most of the diplomats appointed by the Ashraf Ghani government have already left India.

In May, Zakia Wardak, the seniormost Afghan diplomat in India, resigned from her position after reports emerged that she was caught at the Mumbai airport for allegedly trying to smuggle 25 kg of gold worth Rs 18.6 crore from Dubai.

Wardak had taken charge as the acting ambassador of Afghanistan to New Delhi late last year, after working as the Afghan consul general in Mumbai for more than two years.

She took charge of the Afghan embassy in New Delhi last November, after the mission helmed by then ambassador Farid Mamundzay announced its closure.

Mamundzay, who was an appointee of the Ghani government, had moved to the United Kingdom.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.