A court here today extended till 3 November the judicial custody of OP Khaitan & Co managing partner Gautam Khaitan, who was arrested in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland chopper deal.
Special judge VK Gupta sent Khaitan to 14 days’ judicial custody after he was produced in court on expiry of his earlier remand.
Enforcement Directorate (ED) prosecutor Vikas Garg sought extension of judicial custody of Khaitan submitting that the investigation in the case is still in progress.
The court Monday dismissed the bail plea of Khaitan as the probe regarding other accused persons in the case was still going on.
Khaitan, who was on the board of the Chandigarh-based company Aeromatrix, was arrested a day after the agency conducted a search of his premises Sep 22.
The supply of 12 VVIP helicopters from British firm AgustaWestland came under scrutiny after Italian authorities alleged that the company paid a bribe to clinch the deal with India, inked in February 2010.
India Jan 1 terminated the Rs.3,600 crore (about $770 million) deal with AgustaWestland for the purchase of the choppers following allegations of kickbacks having been paid to fix the deal.
India had paid around 45 percent of the total contract value for the choppers meant to ferry the president, the prime minister and other VIPs.
The ED had registered a case in this deal in July 2013 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and booked former Indian Air Force chief SP Tyagi, foreign nationals Carlo Gerosa, Chri stian Michel and Guido Haschke, companies like AgustaWestland, its parent company Italy-based Finmeccanica, Chandigarh-based IDS Infotech and Aeromatrix as well as two companies based in Mauritius and Tunisia, a few other firms and unidentified people in its criminal complaint.
The ED named 21 entities in the case. The Central Bureau of Investigation lodged a separate case in March 2013 against Tyagi and others in connection with the kickback allegations.
Comments
What of this ED claim that arrest warrants against Khaitan are still pending in Italy?
http://www.legallyindia.com/201410205213/Bar-Bench-Litigation/gautam-khaitan-denied-bail-as-still-wanted-by-italians
1. If the Italian judgment is based on a lack of proof by Italian prosecution, a large part may have to do with the lack of evidence they had there. This may include witnesses who did not join the investigation. I would presume Gautam didn't, because if he did, there would be no need for a warrant. In that case, Indian authorities may just have more proximate evidence available to it to carry out the investigation to culminate in conviction.
2. There would be no fear of double jeopardy, because the Italian prosecution would perhaps be concerning the bribe given to foreign public officials and the Indian one would be of the bribe taken. Two sides of the same coin, but with different prosecutions perfectly possible.
3. In any event, the Italian judgment could have no bearing on the ED prosecution, which is based only on a "Scheduled Offence", and those offences would concern only a violation of Indian law.
Having said all the above, in my view, unless there is at least a chargesheet filed by the CBI, the ED cannot even commence the investigation, leave alone attach and arrest under the PMLA. If finally the CBI files a closure report saying no case made out, what does ED do? Can they still hold on to the assets? Can they justify Gautam's arrest? This is not the first time the ED has put the cart before the horse.
The Italian judgment was posted on the site of the Italian Ministry of Justice and has since been removed. It was in Italian, I downloaded a copy and translated it myself.
Coming to your points:
1. The verdict is not based on lack of evidence, apparently. I am saying "apparently" because until the detailed reasons for this verdict are made public (which has to happen within 90 days from the date of the judgment) we will nor know what exactly the court has established. However, the wording used by the court is significant. In Italy acquittals have three distinct formulas: a) because the deed does is not a crime ("perche il fatto non costutuisce reato"), b) because the accused did not commit the deed ("per non aver commesso il fatto") or c) because there is no deed ("perche il fatto non sussiste"). Now, the court used this latter formula, which says that the court has established that no crime has been committed. Had there been any doubt that someone else, somewhere else, had committed the crime, they would have used the b) formula (the accused did not commit the crime, but someone else may have) instead they used the c) formula which is the most definitive one. As far as witnesses, many witnesses, including Air Chief Tyagi, who was willing to testify by videoconference, where rejected by the prosecution, possibly fearing they could further weaken their case. On the other hand, a huge and very detailed report by an international certification body was produced that establishes very clearly that the work of Aeromatrix (which accorting to ED was a conduit for bribe money) was actual, very well done, fairly priced and of undoubted use by Agustawestland. In my opinion, it would be very easy for any chartered accountant to clearly establish where the money received by Aeromatrix went. If it has been used to pay salaries, rent, operating costs, taxes and dividends (if any), then where are the bribes? If not, it should be fairly simple to find out who took the money, and It does not take two years.
2. Again, if there is no bribe given, as the Italian court has established, there cannot be any bribe taken, right?
3. Yes, there may be a "Scheduled Offence", but then again, based on the wording of the Italian judgment, it must be a different offence, not a bribe paid to swing the VVIP deal.
Your last comment prompts the following consideration: if after two years of investigation the CBI has not come up with anything substantive, then something must be fundamentally wrong with htis case, and I very much doubt the ED will succeed where the CBI is failing. To sum it up, in my opinion Gautam Khaitan's arrest is illegal and not based on any solid evidence.
Thanks
Kian
[quote name="Bappi da"]I can say with utmost conviction that Gautam Khaitan is not related to Gautam Adani[/quote]
Since you are making the family tree in your mind, please keep asking your question ad nauseum in your mind as well instead of annoying LI readers over and over again! There are far more important questions and issues at stake here than your "in-mind family tree"! Thank you.
[quote name="This is annoying"]Dear Family Tree Maker,
Since you are making the family tree in your mind, please keep asking your question ad nauseum in your mind as well instead of annoying LI readers over and over again! There are far more important questions and issues at stake here than your "in-mind family tree"! Thank you.[/quote]
[quote name="Guest"]and as matter of the fact with Gautam Ghambhir too..!!! :P[/quote]
Ya..and before you go on the attack...I am a "khaitan lawyer". Not sure which Khaitan though!
[quote name="phool or katte"]This guy asking this question time and time again clearly has some other agenda other than "preparing a family tree". I suspect this joker hopes that google searches by potential clients on khaitan or any of the khaitans will lead here and may cause worry. What an absolute idiot. Mickey, bas yaar..ab bas.
Ya..and before you go on the attack...I am a "khaitan lawyer". Not sure which Khaitan though![/quote]
Where are you publishing this astonishing research on the Khaitan family by the way? We are waiting with bated breath. Hows the goatee?
[quote name="Mikkki Mikki Avi PP"]Arre yaar - chill kar. But think about it - if you have asked the same question 20 times on the same forum and not got an answer - isnt it time to stop asking it? If you are so serious about your research, you should try other avenues.
Where are you publishing this astonishing research on the Khaitan family by the way? We are waiting with bated breath. Hows the goatee?[/quote]