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. Who is Quottrochi? (Dina Nath Mishra) Five years ago, India was at the crossroads. An ordinary, Italy-born woman had all but grabbed the prime ministerial chair, claiming the support of the majority of Lok Sabha members. The 120-year-old Congress willingly surrendered to the Italian bahu (daughter-in-law) of the dynasty. The oldest party in the country could not find a single individual other than her to lead it and the nation of over a billion people. On her part, the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made bold to strangle inner-party democracy. Five years ago, the nation was saved by the bell. For, finally, the nationalist in Mulayam Singh Yadav surfaced, and he quietly put paid to Sonia’s dreams. There may be a whole lot of reasons why she should not be the Prime Minister of India. But just one is enough: She is not of Indian origin.Today, when the nation is once again witnessing the battle of the ballot, every nationalist of every party should ponder whom is he voting? He may be voting for the CPI (M), which ultimately translates into support for Sonia Gandhi, whether directly or indirectly. They may be voting for Laloo Prasad Yadav’s party, which would ultimately strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi. They may be voting for the DMK-Ied front whose prime ministerial candidate is Sonia and Sonia alone. They may be electing PDF candidates in J&K but with the same result. The duty of all true nationalists then is to ensure that power does not slip into the hands of someone of foreign origin. The ramifications of her entry into Prime Minister’s Office are numerous. One of them is the Quattrocchi angle. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, originally came to India as a chartered accountant based in a Chennai- based Italian MNC. Gradually, he made his way into the corridors of power especially after Rajiv Gandhi burst on the political scene in the wake of Sanjay Gandhi’s death in a mysterious air crash. It is essential to understand the Quattrocchi phenomenon, particularly in relation to Sonia Gandhi. He worked for a firm which provided services like designing, engineering, management of construction and training of personnel in the sectors such as oil refineries, gas processing, petrochemicals, fertilizers and pipelines. He had no experience of any guns, gun-systems or related equipment. However, he was a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi’s family. Investigation has shown that the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms and they used to meet frequently. Quattrocchi and his family had free access to the Prime Minister’s house. As a result, Quattrocchi was able to project himself as a person of great influence. Even during the 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Quattrocchi had direct frisk-free entry to Prime Minister’s residence, courtesy the Italian ‘bahu’ of Indira Gandhi. Senior journalist Mahendra Ved had this to say in The Times of India (Delhi Edition; February 3, 1998): “Throughout the 1980s, Ottavio Quattrocchi, the affable Italian, was the man about town who moved in high circles and wielded influence in the corridors of power. His word, spoken in smooth Italian-accented English, was the law. “Ministers would rise in their chairs whenever he would walk in unscheduled and see him off, apparently due to his proximity to the then ruling Gandhi family. One minister, Ramachandra Rath, who did not oblige, was dropped in the next round of cabinet reshuffle, recalls a former Member of Parliament. Rath was at the moment talking to veteran Gandhian, BN Pande, and took exception to Quattrocchi simply walking in. “This was also the era of ‘four powerful women’ in New Delhi. They held kitty parties and went on picnics, recalls a Delhi socialite. They were Sonia Gandhi, Maria Quattrocchi, Nina Singh, wife of Arun Singh and Sterre, the Dutch wife of Satish Sharma. “If Rath paid a ‘price’, so did two Fertilizer secretaries, senior enough to become Cabinet Secretaries. Mr. KV Ramanathan had sought a ‘correct’ approach in the awarding of the Thal- Vaishet fertilizer project to Messrs Kellogg and CF Braun. Snam Progetti, the Italian public sector multinational that Quattrocchi represented in India, did not have the appropriate technology.” The decision by the late HN Bahuguna was reversed by Indira Gandhi in 1980. Snam was conversant only with the technology for urea-based fertilizer, while Thal-Vaishet was to run on ammonia. Snam hired the technology from a Dane, Haldor Topsoe, who was essentially an individual consultant. That matter came up in Parliament in a big way. Even while releasing the 1999 election manifesto of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi dodged the question of Quattrochi connections. But her connection with ‘Q’ is too well known to be forgotten. Here I reproduce the news story written by AB Mahapatra in Free Press Journal dated February 20, 1998. “Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose extradition is demanded by many political parties in connection with the Bofors case, had access to sensitive files in the Prime Minister’s Office when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and he was able to appoint ministers and top bureaucrats. Authentic sources told the Free Press Journal that he used to get information about cabinet meetings and its agenda much in advance. When he was visiting offices, ministers and bureaucrats used to get up from the chair to receive him. He was a frequent visitor to the official residence of India’s so-called royal family without security check, a privilege very few enjoyed.” Though officially Quattrocchi was the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, he worked as a conduit for some in receiving kickbacks and transferring them to safe havens in many deals for over a decade. “In every deal there was a cut. At least there, he was loyal to the royal family,” remarked a retired bureaucrat. He used to appoint ministers, bureaucrats, PSU executives and finalized deals which came his way, even if those were beyond his areas of expertise. The word ‘no’ perhaps did not figure in his dictionary. Soft-spoken Quattrocchi, also worked as an extra-constitutional power centre since 1980s. He got ministers and bureaucrats sacked and snubbed the most influential people of his time who challenged his authority. For Quattrocchi, it was a meteoric rise and an ignominious fall as well, as he has been disowned by the Italian company, Snamprogetti, which he represented in India and elsewhere for more than 16 years. He was known to almost all the top ranking people who mattered and his proximity to Gandhi family was the talk of the town. While the AB Bofors executive, Martin Ardbo, who negotiated the Rs 1,700 crore Bofors gun deal, mentioned him in his diary as the mysterious ‘Q’, his victims in India call him as a ‘pushing man’. He was a good PR man for Snam which won as many as 60 projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in its favor during his tenure. Today, there is nobody to save ‘Q’ in Milan, the headquarters of Snam’s holding company, “ENI.
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:50:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015