Re: Story of Monkey business :) High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft to buy additional Reliance payments to Indian politicians raise transparency issues James Crabtree in MumbaiAuthor alerts Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani Speaks at Ajay Mushran Memorial Lecture...Mukesh D. Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries Ltd., attends the Ajay Mushran Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, India, on Sunday, July 10, 2011. Ambani said India needs a unique development model for equitable economic growth©Bloomberg Mukesh Ambani: the businessman has helped build a $75bn empire that stretches from oil refining to cricket Reliance Industries, the Indian conglomerate owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, paid undisclosed monthly legal consultancy retainers to Manish Tewari, a senior politician, before his being appointed broadcasting minister in India’s previous Congress-led government, documents seen by the Financial Times show. Ravi Shankar Prasad, a senior figure in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party, also invoiced a Reliance affiliate company for monthly legal retainers before he became telecoms minister, separate documents reveal. More ON THIS STORY Reliance reports modest growth in profits Anil Ambani to take on brother Mukesh in 4G mobile sector Reliance fined again over gasfield Reliance seeks $500m from share issue Ambani’s Reliance in $677m India TV deal ON THIS TOPIC India football league off to winning start Great Place to Meet Lodi – The Garden Restaurant, Delhi India’s economic growth slows Drinks groups push for India tax inclusion IN INDUSTRIALS Smiths Group CEO to step down ABB and Hitachi in Japan joint venture Companies cautious about oil price falls Johnson Matthey sells gold and silver refineries Neither Reliance nor the two politicians publicly disclosed the monthly payments. In one year Mr Shankar Prasad sent invoices for more than $100,000, while Mr Tewari sent similar bills over a number of years. Accepting paid retainers from companies is not forbidden by India’s parliamentary rules, and commercial arrangements do not always have to be disclosed. There is no suggestion that any party broke Indian laws. Both politicians are lawyers by profession, and it is relatively common for parliamentarians with legal backgrounds to continue legal practice, including appearing in court for corporate clients. All parties deny wrongdoing. Nonetheless the existence of undisclosed retainer contracts between a company run by India’s pre-eminent tycoon and senior parliamentarians raises questions about political transparency and the perception of potential conflicts of interest, analysts say. “This is a very serious problem,” says Professor Jagdeep Chhokar, former dean of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and co-founder of the Association for Democratic Reforms, a campaign group. “If these contracts are not disclosed, how do we decide whether any person is taking decisions in the public interest, or in the interest of a particular company?” Mr Ambani has long been reputed to wield formidable influence in New Delhi, helping to build a $75bn business empire that stretches from oil refining and energy exploration to retail and cricket. His business interests include a broadcasting arm and a planned $12bn investment in a new mobile telecoms business, which is due to launch next year. Mr Ambani is also one of India’s most controversial public figures, known for his $20bn personal fortune as well as his family’s luxurious Mumbai home, a 27-storey residential skyscraper often described as the world’s most expensive private dwelling. In 2013, India granted him the country’s highest level of governmentsecurity protection, following threats to his life. The nature of any financial relationships between Reliance and senior Indian politicians have until now remained largely a matter of speculation. But documents seen by the FT show that Mr Shankar Prasad, a former BJP spokesman, sent an invoice for Rs8.4m ($135,506) for legal services provided between April 2013 and March 2014 to Fine Tech Corporate Private, a Reliance affiliate. This is a very serious problem. If these contracts are not disclosed, how do we decide whether any person is taking decisions in the public interest, or in the interest of a particular company? - Professor Jagdeep Chhokar, former dean of the Indian Institute of Management He was appointed as India’s telecoms minister by Mr Modi in May 2014, following the BJP’s victory in national elections. Manish Tewari, a senior figure in the Congress party, also received payments from Reliance for a number of years before becoming broadcasting minister in 2012. In June 2010, Reliance agreed to a monthly retainer paying Mr Tewari, then a backbench MP, a total of Rs12m ($193,580) over the next two years. In June 2012, Mr Tewari wrote to Reliance asking for his contract to be renewed. Reliance agreed to pay a total of Rs14.4m ($232,295) for two further years. Both politicians say they ceased all commercial legal work upon taking ministerial office, as required by India’s ministerial code. Mr Shankar Prasad said in a statement that any legal work undertaken as an MP “has been purely in professional capacity, only like a lawyer and client and nothing else”. He denied invoicing Reliance Industries but did not respond to a request for comment on whether he invoiced Fine Tech Corporate Private. Mr Tewari told the FT that he also had acted within the rules, although he said in an interview that India’s rules should be changed so that such retainers ought to be declared in future “to keep everything above board”. The existence of similar commercial arrangements with parliamentarians would prove controversial in other advanced democracies, according to Milan Vaishnav of the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In the US, members of Congress are not allowed to accept commercial payments. In the UK, such payments are allowed under certain circumstances but must be disclosed. “The idea of senior politicians accepting undisclosed lucrative retainer contracts with big companies would cause a major scandal,” Mr Vaishnav says. “Conflict-of-interest standards in Indian politics are pathetically weak.” Reliance and the two politicians declined to provide any details of the nature of legal advice provided during the period of the retainers, citing confidentiality. In a statement Reliance noted that India’s rules allow hiring parliamentarians for legal advice and stressed that any “engagement discontinues” if an MP becomes a minister. “RIL [Reliance] has large and varied demands for legal assistance,” the company said. “Our selection of lawyers is based on our needs and their expertise and that has nothing to do with their being in politics or being an MP.” Mr Ambani has drawn criticism from political campaigners, including the opposition Aam Aadmi (Common Man) party, which criticised Reliance over various allegations of “crony capitalism” during India’s election campaign this year — allegations the company fiercely denied. More generally, Mr Ambani’s political ties remain a controversial subject in India. The tycoon inherited Reliance from his father Dhirubhai Ambani, whose rise in industries such as textiles and petrochemicals was one of India’s most celebrated rags-to-riches stories and who built a reputation as a formidable political operator. The company’s relationships in New Delhi also played a part in the battle between Mr Ambani and his younger brother Anil Ambani for control of their father’s empire — a legal and media feud that divided the country’s political and business establishment and ultimately saw the two men split the conglomerate in 2005. Reliance’s response in full Reliance on Thursday said: “RIL has large and varied demands for legal assistance. We work with various lawyers from time to time for such legal assistance. The details of such engagement are contained in our accounts and are available with tax authorities. Several eminent lawyers in India are and have historically been in active politics and have been rendering legal services to leading corporates in India. There is no bar against an elected representative to continue his or her practice while being an MP or MLA. Our selection of lawyers is basis [sic] our needs and their expertise and that has nothing to do with their being in politics or being MP/MLA. As is the common practice and legal requirement, when such an MP/MLA has joined as a Minister in the Union Cabinet, the engagement discontinues. Communication with lawyers are privileged and are protected by the law.” Reliance payments to Indian politicians raise transparency issues - FT image Reliance payments to Indian politicians raise transparen... Reliance Industries, the Indian conglomerate owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, paid undisclosed monthly legal consultancy retainers to Manish Tewari,... View on ft Preview by Yahoo ---In TheBecoming@yahoogroups, wrote : In the excitement of the elections and a new Prime Minister assuming power, a most unusual battle between two of the biggest companies in the country all but escaped the attention of large sections of the media. The biggest corporate entity in the public sector, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has in a court of law accused the biggest private sector company, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), of pilfering 18 billion cubic metres of natural gas worth as much as Rs 30,000 crore since 2009. That’s not all there is to this sensational story. ONGC, a company largely owned by the Government of India, has accused the government itself — namely, the ministry of petroleum and natural gas as well as its regulatory and technical wing, the directorate general of hydrocarbons (DGH) — of virtually turning a blind eye to its complaints of theft against RIL. The private sector company, headed by India’s richest man Mukesh D. Ambani, has refuted the allegations. What makes the entire episode even more murky is that days before he demitted office, the outgoing Union minister of petroleum and natural gas, M. Veerappa Moily, wrote to the seniormost bureaucrat in the ministry, secretary Saurabh Chandra, claiming that ONGC had “mishandled” the case by moving a petition before the Delhi high court without seeking their prior permission. This, according to former minister Moily, was an “extreme” and “drastic” step. He further claimed that the actions of a relatively junior bureaucrat who was in the ministry had caused “embarrassment” to the government. RIL issued a statement saying it was “saddened” by a statement made by the ONGC’s chairman and managing director (CMD), Dinesh K. Sarraf, to the effect that the public sector company had sued RIL to protect its commercial interests. He had told the Press Trust of India on May 20: “The matter (of RIL allegedly drawing gas from ONGC blocks) was brought to the notice of our board (in March). The board was of the view that we need to protect our commercial interest at all costs. If that requires any legal recourse, we will take that.” RIL claimed that “some elements in ONGC” were “misleading the new CMD, Mr Sarraf, in order to hide their own failure to develop discoveries made over the last 13 years in these blocks”. Interestingly, Mr Moily had earlier suggested that Mr Sarraf’s predecessor, Sudhir Vasudeva, be given an extension of his term as CMD of ONGC which got over in February. But Mr Moily’s move was over-ruled by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. An extension of Mr Vasudeva’s term had been opposed by Nirmala Sitharaman, former spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party who is now minister of state for commerce and industry, and Gurudas Dasgupta, former MP belonging to the Communist Party of India, on the ground that there were vigilance cases pending against him. On May 15, a day before the election results were declared, ONGC formally petitioned the court accusing RIL of stealing gas from blocks adjoining those where RIL is contracted to operate in the Krishna-Godavari basin. Almost a year ago, in July 2013, ONGC had first apprised the petroleum ministry about its allegations. In September, there were meetings between officials of RIL and ONGC, and in November data was exchanged. On February 11, 2014, after RIL asked ONGC for more data, the public sector company wrote to its administrative ministry asking for a “neutral expert” to be appointed to ascertain whether RIL was indeed stealing gas from ONGC’s wells which adjoin each other. ONGC’s director, exploration, Narendra K. Verma stated that the data provided by RIL had been analysed, that ONGC was confident that two adjoining blocks had the same “pool” and that based on international practices, gas from the pool should be apportioned between the two companies. “It appears that (the) endeavours of ONGC to come to a common ground with RIL are now failing and also considerable time has elapsed since DGH directed RIL on August 28, 2013, to share the data with ONGC,” Mr Verma stated in his February 11 letter to the then joint secretary, exploration, in the ministry, Giridhar Aramane. Mr Verma’s letter also called for intervention by the DGH in this dispute since the regulator was mandated under the production-sharing contract to handle situations wherein adjoining gas blocks shared a common reservoir. RIL stated that in spite of ONGC filing a petition, the process to appoint a neutral expert was still on. RIL’s statement noted: “Since then, as per international practice, ONGC and RIL have been engaged in the process of appointing an independent agency to investigate the issue of possible reservoir connectivity across the blocks. The two had met on May 9, 2014, and exchanged drafts regarding the scope of work to be assigned to such agency. On May 23, the parties again met and finalised the enquiry notice to be sent to four agreed international ex-pert agencies. It was decided to issue the enquiry notice on May 26, 2014. Since the process for appointing this agency as per international practice was already well underway it is indeed unfortunate that some elements in ONGC forced invocation of the Delhi high court at this juncture.” On May 22, while demitting office as petroleum minister, Mr Moily wrote to secretary Saurabh Chandra expressing his disapproval with ONGC filing a petition against its main shareholder, alleging “omission and commission” on the part of the ministry and the DGH. He wrote that the next minister should be briefed on taking charge so that accountability could be fixed for “mishandling the matter and allowing (it) to escalate to this level”. Mr Moily said that before taking such a “drastic step”, ONGC should have intimated the ministry of its intention to file a petition in court. He specifically pilloried Mr Aramane for “this extreme and embarrassing situation for the government” and wondered why the bureaucrat — who was a member of the management committee for the blocks being operated on by both RIL and ONGC and the ministry’s representative on the board of directors of ONGC — had not tried to “resolve the dispute”. Mr Aramane has since been transferred as principal secretary to Andhra Pradesh. The Delhi high court will resume hearings on this unique dispute on August 12. deccanchronicle/140603/commentary-op-ed/article/polinomics-unique-dispute ---In TheBecoming@yahoogroups, wrote : Please watch the movie the inside job on Wall sts role in controlling USA.. It is an eye opener Regards Dr Rama Krishnan On 2 May 2014, at 3:41 pm, vavamenon wrote: Mr.Junaid Gretings This was the story used by some financial expertise watch the movie to explain how banks in America sold and resold financial guarantees many times over, the instruments (derivatives of the original asset guarantee) inflated at 1000s of times their original value by rumour propaganda and robbed public of their hard earned and borrowed funds. In America, the ones who floated and nourished this idea, like Lehman Brothers, S&P Moore, etc made the killings, then by chest-beating dramas of bankruptcy, got bailed out by Govt with tax payers money. Both ways they squeezed public and Govt. And who are these actors? None other than the 10-12 Bankers controlling the FEDERAL RESERVE. And who owns those 10-12 banks. Jews. Very few care to go deep into these most seriously flawed finance-structural system and their voices are so feeble that the propaganda machine making thieves as victims succeeds, almost always, especially in America, as the public participation in such issues or foreign policy is zero. They are taught that America is great and so are they. In an inflated-ego mood, they believe whatever their leaders say blindly. American banking system has been trying this formula in developing countries and in a couple of cases, like Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, they got away with it. China roothlessly said no meddling, please. In India too, there is a lot of intervention/control through IMF, WORLD BANK, etc with increasing success helped by sold-out traitors in the nation. Hope, patriots will rule India so that such traps are avoided. India has already overtaken Japan to become the 3rd largest economy with a GDP of 4.95 trillion dollar GDP, just some 2 trillion below China, which can made up in 2-3 years with proper wise and strict financial administration in place, but definitely not by people who are busy looting the nations resources and giving rosy picture of economy with manipulated figures. May India suffer no more bleeding ! A concerned citizen .
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 04:18:37 +0000