How is BJP Govt different from UPA Govt which did the same in 2011?
NEW DELHI: The Union government on Friday filed an application in the Supreme Court, saying it cannot disclose details of foreign accounts held by Indians which are governed by bilateral double taxation avoidance treaties.
Petitioner and senior advocate Ram Jethmalani said this is an attempt by Narendra Modi government to shield those who stashed black money abroad.
Jethmalani said such a plea could be made only by crooks who have illegally parked their ill-gotten money abroad and not by a democratically elected government.
Outside the court, Jethmalani took a strong critical view of the finance minister and attorney general for making such an application to the court and said it could help only the criminals. more
The pact was a settlement of not declaring the names of top cadre who hold bank account overseas.
Not only politicians, but bureaucrats, businessmen, some even in the judiciary are also corrupt. Then there is also drug money, gold smuggling etc. Politicians, who have been in power for too long, deeply involved.
The Supreme Court had constituted a SIT on black money on Ram Jethmalani's plea. He accuses the Modi government of protecting the culprits. Modi government is following the UPA path when it refused to divulge the names to the Supreme Court citing the treaty.
There are two sets of names. In Liechtenstein Bank accounts, the German government announced that anybody could take the information, but the Government of India asked them to give it under the direct taxation avoidance agreement under which it is a secret. That's why the Supreme Court asked why did they obtain it under a secret clause what is available in the open?
But the most important thing is the HSBC account particulars which we got from France. France got it from records stolen by a disgruntled employee in the HSBC bank in Switzerland. But the bank is in the Swiss jurisdiction. We got reportedly about 600 Indian names from France under the double taxation avoidance agreement.
The government view is that under terms of the bilateral the details can be disclosed it only after prosecution is launched. This is the claim of the government saying this is the international practice.
In public court proceedings, the government can disclose the names. The government seems to say that the Supreme Court cannot over-rule the DTAA. But no over-ruling is needed because the DTAA itself says that it can be disclosed in public court proceedings.
When the court says the government has to disclose, it must disclose.
The bureaucrats will take a view which is very defensive and conservative. The more serious thing is they have filed an application saying the original order the Supreme Court had passed must be modified.
The original judgement says the government should not enter into any agreement with any country which says the information must be kept confidential and it is prohibiting the government from entering into inter-government agreement with the US for automatic and mutual sharing of financial information which is due in December.
The government is wrong in filing this application because the DTAA with America specifically says you can disclose this information in public court proceedings. Signing the inter-governmental agreement with America will not violate the Supreme Court judgment. more
What is wrong in declaring wealth?
Whether black or white will be determined after investigation.
How shame, Jaitley makes such statement in public as well, cannot declare names. more
They have no options but to declare . Yes timing is important .
They will have to wait for some time . But not for too long .
Sent from my iPad
On 17-Oct-2014, at 5:49 PM, Sunil Dutt Agrawal <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sunil Dutt Agrawal
> Sunil Dutt Agrawal posted a message in "Aam Aadmi Party Delhi/NCR".
> Subject: How is BJP Govt different from UPA Govt which did the same in 2011?.
> Black money case: Can't disclose names of foreign account holders, govt tells SC
> NEW DELHI: The more..
> Reply Reply to this email to post a comment.
> If you believe that this post is inappropriate for this Circle, report it.
> This email was sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you don't want to receive emails from LocalCircles in future, please Unsubscribe.
> LocalCircles, Inc., 1556 Halford Ave., Suite 290, Santa Clara, CA USA 95051.