SATYAM FRAUD: EMERGING ISSUES

Dear Sir;

The gist of the thing is that Satyam tried to purchase land owned by another company (Maytas) belonging to the son of the Chairman of Satyam, Mr. Raju. In fact the Board of Satyam approved the deal, but some big shareholders raised objections and the deal could not be proceeded with. In the process, the shares of Satyam were mauled - they lost more than 50%. Surprisingly, this deal was approved by the Board in the presence of independent directors. That raised big issues about the corporate governance, and turned the heat on Satyam.

Apparently, this deal was being made to cover up a significant cash shortage that Satyam had. It looks that the idea was to purchase land for about Rs. 6000 crores, and adjust cash shortage of about Rs. 5000 crore. Since the deal did not come through and the share prices went down, the Chairman was caught in a bind. Circumstances forced him to admit his guilt, and the big story came out when he himself wrote a letter to SEBI, Stock exchanges and the Board of Satyam informing them about fudging the accounts. As per him, the company had been fudging the accounts for a 7-8 years now, and had been showing inflated turnover, profit and cash/bank balance. The overstatement of cash/balance was, as per this gentleman, to the extent of more than Rs. 5000 crores. Also, he claimed that he had put his own money (more than Rs 1000 crore) into the company without the same being recorded in the books of the company. Hell broke out, and the markets crashed once again, raising still bigger questions about corporate governance, and the quality of audit by firms like PWC, the statutory auditors of Satyam.

Now, how that can be done with a whole lot of internal and statutory audit by the likes of PWC is beyond me. One can do some things for a few days, and can conceal it. But the kind of operation that Mr. Raju says happened in this case has to necessarily involve the lowest rung of the work force moving upto the top. Keeping it all under a lid for 7-8 years, to me, is not possible. Over a period of 7-8 years, the two partners of PWC alone could not have audited the accounts in person - they would have been assisted by a number of juniors - surely not all of them could have been silenced. I can say this with all the conviction and experience that I have accumulated over my 30+ years of working life. Apparently, the same thoughts have crossed some other minds also. That is the reason that investigations are being made in directions other than what has been stated by Mr. Raju. My personal hunch is that the cash was actually there. It has been taken out in last few months - that is something entirely feasible and easy to do. The issue in that case would be where has the cash gone ? From our experience of Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh cases, I think it highly improbable for Government agencies to find that out. The result would be that while the public at large suffers for having invested in this company, Mr. Raju cools his heals in the jail for a few years, spends a few crores for making his life comfortable there and then is released once again to live a peaceful life like a king. Of course, the sundry politicians who have been beneficiaries of the legacies of Mr. Raju are not going to be touched. Another issue that haunts me is why at all did this fellow do it ? As it is, he was leading a much admired company, living happily a gratifying life. What caused all this to happen ? If any of you can think of any reason, please let me know.

January, 31st 2009 Joint audits and inspections by the ICAI/DCA are critical if the system has to work.

The Satyam affair has shaken the country's audit profession and regulatory authorities to its roots. Investors have suffered in a big way and Indian business has lost some of its sheen. Has there been a systemic failure or is Satyam just a big exception? Has the macro-structure of the audit procedure not evolved in a manner
commensurate with the growth of Indian business and its physical globalization?

The Ministry of Company Affairs (MCA), first enlarged the scope of work (and hence responsibility and liability) of statutory auditors by issuing a 22 point questionnaire called the MAOCARO Order, 1975. This, of course, remains a pioneering and unique step in even international terms. This made internal audit compulsory and the
statutory auditor was bound to comment on the efficacy and extent of internal controls and review the internal audit. Such internal audit is not mandatory internationally. By its very nature, internal audit is extensive in relation to accounting system, internal controls' review and transaction checking.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Department of Corporate Affairs (DCA) thereafter made it mandatory to have audit committees where independent directors were in a majority and whose chairman has to be an independent director; they would be (a) obliged to review and implement internal controls; (b) observe accounting standards; (c) review and approve accounts; (d) review financial management and; (e) appoint internal auditors and recommend statutory auditors. Their recommendations are binding on the Board unless the Board discloses to the shareholders its reasons for non-agreement. My own experience in three cases is that a strong knowledgeable audit committee and its chairman are the best bulwark whenever promoters' opinion differs from that of the auditors. We should substantially strengthen this system.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI)] have been strongly supportive of moves for quality improvement and quality controls. ICAI issued 32 Accounting Standards, 34 Auditing Standards, 6 Internal Audit Standards and several External Quality Control
Standards. It has moved for harmonization of standards with the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). ICAI also brought in monetary limitations on the non-audit work that auditors can provide to the auditee company directly or through related parties. Where the partners of the audit firm or their relatives have a 20 per cent
beneficial interest, the fee from all such assignments cannot exceed the audit fee.

Yet, Satyam happened. While Satyam's external auditors are in the limelight, the responsibility also rests with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), internal auditors and the audit committee. Their roles should be examined by a joint special study group of the MCA and ICAI so that remedial steps can
be taken. The Vivian Bose Commission in India and the Sarbanes Oxley Act in the US have strengthened the system of audit and corporate regulation in the public interest.

Legal Consequences: Legal jurisprudence with reference to auditors has evolved substantially in Europe, the US, Australia and India and increasingly recognizes the social responsibility of the auditor. However, almost every precedent recognizes that (a) an auditor is expected to exercise a high degree of reasonable care and skill; (b) he is not expected to be a bloodhound unless there are circumstances to arouse his suspicion; and (c) the law has now evolved to ensure that he is liable for damages for not faithfully discharging his duties not only to the contracting party but to everyone who, in the normal course, would use the audited accounts.

Lord Denning in the UK first expressed the view of an auditor having social responsibility in a far-reaching dissenting judgment which has now become the norm. Subsequent cases expanded the responsibility of auditors to third parties but within certain parameters.

For the audit profession, Satyam is indeed a blot; but to my mind it is more a black exception. The profession and the corporate sector need to strengthen and intensify internal audit systems; and statutory auditors need to review the entire gamut of audit processes.

Future Scenario: The Satyam incident will (a) require the audit committee to be more active and vigilant; (b) increase substantially the coverage and intensity of internal audit and, sometimes, even an investigative audit may be required; (c) force the statutory auditors to rely much more on external evidence directly obtained by them; (d) the DCA will have to strengthen the Board with information and enforce its earlier system of tri-annual inspection of listed companies which has been implemented lackadaisically in the last few years; (e) encourage the ICAI to strengthen all quality control measures including peer review and develop a system of inspection of
auditors as in Canada; and (f) require companies to introduce an effective whistle-blower policy. Internally, the professional firms have to introduce partners' audit review and partner-rotation programmes; some have done so already. It is not without logic that the entire developed world has, after a great debate, not opted for mandatory rotation of auditors but has opted for rotation of partners instead.

The proposal to rotate auditors every three years has to be carefully reviewed. The auditor has to understand the business, its risks, its internal controls etc. Mid-size firms like ours will gain but it will damage the profession if auditors have to shop around for replacement audits every three years. Can they qualify balance
sheets? This will destroy their independence. A system of joint audit and of quality inspection of audit firms by the ICAI is the best answer.

The approach of forensic audit is to unearth evidence of wrongdoing; hence it needs a combined team of people from the police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), lawyers and audit professionals with an adversarial approach. Business managers will then become like public sector managers facing a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit and will lose their initiative. Instead of forensic audits, investigative audit techniques would have to be applied whenever major weaknesses in internal controls or their implementation are found. ["An investigator does not accept a stated fact as correct until it is substantiated. Unlike an auditor, he cannot presume that in the absence of suspicious circumstances, a figure or a stated fact is necessarily correct." Contemporary Auditing: Dr K Gupta]. These steps will bring to light frauds, if any, much more quickly, but will not stop them. Criminals have never been deterred by strong laws. And collusive fraud is even more difficult to uncover especially if there is comprehensive paperwork to support it; but, over a period of time, it can be detected by a common sense approach instead of a mechanical approach.

The ICAI's disciplinary board needs to be expanded; and work expedited and publicized to gain public confidence. For large value cases like Satyam, special benches need to be constituted for expeditious decisions. Regaining investors' and regulators' confidence should be the highest priority. The DCA has to upgrade pay scales and recruit professionals for its work to achieve a quality jump in oversight work.

Given the strategic importance of internal auditors, Companies Bill 2008 should mandate that internal auditors and valuers must be members of the ICAI, subject to their professional ethics and regulatory discipline. Today the big four use surrogate private limited companies, some of which rumoured to be owned through tax havens in flagrant violation of the ICAI Act (and its ethics and monetary limits) to carry out internal audit and express opinions on
compliance of accounting standards apart from consulting work.

Following the accounting scandal at the diversified manufacturer Tyco International Ltd, auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoop ers LLP (PwC) yesterday said that it would pay $225 million to settle a class-action case brought against it by Tyco''s investors.
The settlement with PwC, combined with a recent settlement with Tyco announced earlier, brings the total settlement to more than $3.2 billion, according to a statement from law firm Grant & Eisenhofer and two other law firms representing the plaintiffs.
Tyco last month agreed to pay $2.975 billion into a fund for plaintiffs in 32 class-action lawsuits that resulted from an accounting scandal that sent former Tyco chief executive Dennis Kozlowski to prison for a minimum of an over eight-year term for allegedly misappropriating more that $400 million of the company''s funds.
Kozlowski and former Tyco finance chief financial officer Mark Swartz were found guilty in June 2005 of looting $600 million from the company.
The company has since spun off Tyco Electronics Ltd. to shareholders.
The PwC settlement is still subject to approval by US District Court in Concord , New Hampshire .
"PricewaterhouseCoo pers has decided to resolve the vast majority of the Tyco litigation involving the firm by joining the global settlement previously announced," said PricewaterhouseCoop ers spokesman David Nestor. "While PwC was prepared to continue to defend all aspects of its work in the litigation process, the cost of that defense and the size of the securities class action made settlement the sensible choice for the firm."
"This is more a formality today in terms of the filing of the full settlement agreement with the court," said Tyco International spokesman Paul Fitzhenry.

January, 09th 2009
PricewaterhouseCoop ers (PwC), an advisory and consulting firm whose
sister company audited the accounts of Hyderabad-based Satyam
Computer Services, has a chequered past with Indian tax authorities,
having admitted its "mistake" in at least two cases of tax evasion.

The Income Tax department as well as the service tax department had
detected tax evasions by Price Waterhouse, the audit firm. PwC had
to settle the cases with both the departments after it admitted to
making the mistake and paid the dues -- with interest and penalty.

"The question is not the amount of evasion, but the fact a top
accounting firm, which provides tax advisory and audits the
accounts, had involved in tax evasion is a matter of concern," said
a revenue department official.

The first case relates to writing back of gratuity provision and not
paying tax liable on the same. The tax loss in this case was Rs 9.13
lakh.

Basically, any expenditure towards providing for gratuity is allowed
as tax deduction under the Income Tax rules. However, when the same
deducted amount was not utilised and written back, it would be
counted as income and tax is payable on the same.

PwC, according to revenue department, did not enter the written back
amount in the tax return for 2000-01 and therefore paid less tax.

The department had imposed 300 per cent fine on the said tax amount,
which PwC had contested in the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had
lowered the penalty to 100 per cent of the tax amount.

In April 2007, PricewaterhouseCoop ers had petitioned the department
for compounding of offences for filing incomplete income-tax return
for 2000-01.

When the department was contemplating to initiate further legal
proceedings against the firm, PwC, in order to avoid any litigation
and buy peace, moved an application for compounding offences, which
means acceptance of offence and willingness to pay fine to avoid any
legal prosecution.

A spokesperson for the firm had said then that "It was a human
error, as even clearly held by Tribunal. Though negligible when
compared to our total tax payments, we regret it."

In the second case, the Delhi branch of the Service Tax department
had detected a tax evasion by the firm in 2007. The firm had shown a
huge amount under miscellaneous expenditures in the balance sheet.
It was found that the firm had repatriated some money to its parent
company overseas for certain services. But service tax was not
deducted.

"The firm admitted guilt and paid taxes with interest and penalty
running into crores," said a senior revenue department official.

Action against partners, not audit firm, says ICAI
January, 10th 2009
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has said that
the concerned partner who signed on Satyam Computers' balance sheet
will be held responsible and not the audit firm Price Waterhouse.

"We can initiate action against the partners, if they are found
guilty of audit failure but not against the firm," ICAI vice-
president Uttam Prakash Agarwal told ET.

ICAI, an apex body for accountants
and a quasi-judicial body, has already issued a notice to Price
Waterhouse, seeking information on the partners and also copies of
the accounts of Satyam that were audited by the firm, Mr Agarwal
said. Price Waterhouse will be given a maximum of 30 days to respond
to the notice. The disciplinary committee of the council will
proceed on the matter if the firm doesn't respond by then.

The brazen falsification of accounts at India's fourth largest IT
company, Satyam, and the alleged failure by its statutory audit firm
Price Waterhouse to detect the cover-ups has prompted both the
ministry of company affairs and ICAI to take stringent steps.

Reportedly, Price Waterhouse partner Srinivas Talluri had signed on
Satyam's balance sheet. Another partner S Gopalakrishnan had signed
on the company's 2006-07 balance sheet, a period that is also being
looked into under the investigations.

If found guilty, ICAI, through its central council, can remove the
membership of the chartered accountants. "The institute can proceed
only if we receive a complaint. Despite the public outcry, so far we
haven't received a single complaint — neither from banks, nor from
shareholders, " Mr Agarwal said.

"The institute, looking at the severity of the problem (in Satyam)
has proceeded suo motto and issued the notice to the audit firm
Price Waterhouse," he added.

Meanwhile, pressure has started mounting on two of the 40 central
council members of ICAI to resign following the accounting scam at
Satyam. Messages and email are doing the rounds among the CA
fraternity seeking the resignation of PricewaterhouseCoop ers
partners and council members Harinderjit Singh and S Gopalakrishnan.
The CAs feel that PwC's distance from the central council of ICAI
will enable the institute to conduct an independent inquiry into the
Satyam scam.

"We have been approached by number of CAs to remove two of the
central council members who are partners with PwC. However, we
believe that ICAI is not a political platform where we should
indulge into seeking resignations after a controversy. Both Mr Singh
and Mr Gopalakrishnan are elected members of ICAI," Mr Agarwal said
adding that both the PwC partners have assured ICAI of all
cooperation in the investigation.

Despite repeated efforts, Mr Gopalakrishnan could not be reached for
his comments while Mr Harinderjit Singh said: " I am not part of the
central council as a nominee of PwC and hence there is no question
of my resignation. I m a central council member and represent the
mandate from ICAI members."

"Premature reports are pointing an accusing finger at PwC but let
the investigations be complete, before blaming anyone for the Satyam
Computers debacle," he added.

PWC OKs $97.5M settlement

Posted: October 4, 2008

New York > PricewaterhouseCoop ers LLP will pay $97.5 million to settle a
lawsuit claiming the accounting firm helped mislead investors in American
International Group.

A tentative settlement of the suit was announced Friday by Ohio Attorney
General Nancy Rogers, who is prosecuting the case on behalf of plaintiffs
including the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. She said in a
statement that the settlement is among the 10 highest paid by an accounting
firm in a securities fraud class-action, or group, lawsuit. (Bloomberg)

On Wall Street, his name is legendary. With money he had made as a
lifeguard on the beaches of Long Island, he built a trading powerhouse
that had prospered for more than four decades. At age 70, he had become
an influential spokesman for the traders who are the hidden gears of the
marketplace.
But on Thursday morning, this consummate trader, Bernard L. Madoff, was
arrested at his Manhattan home by federal agents who accused him of
running a multibillion- dollar fraud scheme — perhaps the largest in
Wall Street's history.

Regulators have not yet verified the scale of the fraud. But the
criminal complaint filed against Mr. Madoff on Thursday in federal court
in Manhattan reports that he estimated the losses at $50 billion.
"We are alleging a massive fraud — both in terms of scope and
duration," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, director of the enforcement
division at the Securities and Exchange Commission. "We are moving
quickly and decisively to stop the fraud and protect remaining assets
for investors."

Andrew M. Calamari, an associate director for enforcement in the
S.E.C.'s regional office in New York, said the case involved "a
stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions. "

According to his lawyers, Mr. Madoff was released on a $10 million bond.
"Bernie Madoff is a longstanding leader in the financial services
industry," said Daniel Horwitz, one of his lawyers. "He will
fight to get through this unfortunate set of events."

The Madoff firm, at one point was the largest market maker on the
electronic Nasdaq market, regularly operating as both a buyer and seller
of a host of widely traded securities. The firm employed hundreds of
traders.

There was some worry on Wall Street that Mr. Madoff's fall would
shake more foundations than his own.

According to the most recent federal filings, Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities, the firm he founded in 1960, operated more than
two dozen funds overseeing $17 billion.

These funds have been widely marketed to wealthy investors, hedge funds
and other institutional customers for more than a decade, although an
S.E.C. filing in the case said the firm reported having 11 to 23 clients
at the beginning of this year.

At the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal
judge appointed a receiver on Thursday evening to secure the Madoff
firm's overseas accounts and warned the firm not to move any assets
until he had ruled on whether to freeze the assets.

A hearing on that request is scheduled for Friday. Regulators said they
hoped to have a clearer picture of the losses facing investors by that
court hearing.

The Madoff funds attracted investors with the promise of high returns
and low fees. One of Mr. Madoff's more prominent funds, the
Fairfield Sentry fund, reported having $7.3 billion in assets in October
and claimed to have paid more than 11 percent interest each year through
its 15-year track record.

Competing hedge fund managers have wondered privately for years how Mr.
Madoff generated such high returns, in bull markets and bear, given the
generally low-yielding investment strategies he described to his
clients.

"The numbers were too good to be true, for too long," said
Girish Reddy, a managing director at Prisma Partners, an investment firm
that invests in hedge funds. "And the supporting infrastructure was
weak." Mr. Reddy said his firm had looked at the Madoff funds but
decided against investing in them because their performance was too
consistently positive, even in times when the market was incredibly
volatile.

Just days earlier, Mr. Madoff had told another senior executive he was
struggling to raise cash to cover about $7 billion in requested
withdrawals from his clients, and he had appeared "to have been
under great stress in the prior weeks," according to the S.E.C.
complaint.

Mr. Madoff invited two executives to his Manhattan apartment. When they
joined him there, he told them that his money-management business was
"all just one big lie" and "basically, a giant Ponzi
scheme." The senior employees understood him to be saying that he
had for years been paying returns to certain investors out of the cash
received from other investors.

By this account, Mr. Madoff told the executives he intended to surrender
to the authorities in about a week but first wanted to distribute
approximately $200 million to $300 million to "certain selected
employees, family and friends."

On Thursday morning, however, he was arrested on a single count of
securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison
and a maximum fine of $5 million.

In building those new trading networks, his firm had formed partnerships
with some of the largest brokerage businesses on Wall Street, including
Goldman Sachs
<http://topics. nytimes.com/ top/news/ business/ companies/ goldman_sachs_ gro\
up_inc/index. html?inline= nyt-org> and Merrill Lynch
<http://topics. nytimes.com/ top/news/ business/ companies/ merrill_lynch_ and\
_company/index. html?inline= nyt-org> .

Mr. Madoff founded Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities in 1960 and
liked to tell interviewers about earning his initial stake by working as
a lifeguard at city beaches and installing underground sprinkler
systems.

By the early 1980s, his firm was one of the largest independent trading
operations in the securities industry. The company had around $300
million in assets in 2000 at the height of the Internet bubble and
ranked among the top trading and securities firms in the nation.

Extracts from article in New York Times by By DIANA B. HENRIQUES
<http://topics. nytimes.com/ top/reference/ timestopics/ people/h/ diana_b_he\
nriques/index. html?inline= nyt-per> and ZACHERY KOUWE with Vikas Bajaj
and Gretchen Morgenson contributing reporting .

LOOK WHERE OUR MONEY IS GOING????



Revelation on Swiss Bank Accounts "who can save india no one knows where tax payer money is going "



Revelation on Swiss Bank Accounts


This is so shocking . . . . . wish black money deposits was an Olympics event . . . . . India would have won a gold medal hands down.
The second best Russia has 4 times lesser deposit. US is not even there in the counting in top five !! India has more money in Swiss banks than all the other countries combined !!!!

Recently, due to international pressure, Swiss govt. agreed to disclose the names of the account holders only if the respective govts formally asked for it. Indian govt. is not asking for the details . .
. . no marks for guessing why ????

We need to start a movement to pressurise the govt. to do so !!
This is perhaps the only way, and a golden opportunity, to expose the high and mighty and weed out corruption !!

Please read on . . . . . and forward to all the honest Indians to . .. . . like somebody is forwarding to you . . . . . and build a ground-swell of support for action !!
Is India poor, who says? Ask Swiss banks With personal account deposit bank of $1500 billion in foreign reserve which have been misappropriated, an amount 13 times larger than the country's foreign debt, one needs to rethink if India is a poor country?.

DISHONEST INDUSTRIALISTS, scandalous politicians and corrupt IAS, IRS, IPS officers have deposited in foreign banks in their illegal personal accounts a sum of about $ 1500 billion, which have been misappropriated by them. This amount is about 13 times larger than the country's foreign debt. With this amount 45 crore poor people can get Rs 1,00,000 each.
This huge amount has been appropriated from the people of India by exploiting and betraying them.

Once this huge amount of black money & property comes back to India , the entire foreign debt can be repaid in 24 hours. After paying the entire foreign debt, we will have surplus amount, almost 12 times larger than the foreign debt. If this surplus amount is invested in
earning interest, the amount of interest will be more than the annual budget of the Central government. So even if all the taxes are abolished, then also the Central government will be able to maintain the country very comfortably. .

Some 80,000 people travel to Switzerland every year, of whom 25,000 travel very frequently. 'Obviously, these people won't be tourists.
They must be travelling there for some other reason,' believes an official involved in tracking illegal money. And, clearly, he isn't referring to the commerce ministry bureaucrats who've been flitting in and out of Geneva ever since the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
negotiations went into a tailspin!

Just read the following details and note how these dishonest industrialists, scandalous politicians, corrupt officers, cricketers, film actors, illegal sex trade and protected wildlife operators, to name just a few, sucked this country's wealth and prosperity. This may
be the picture of deposits in Swiss banks only. What about other international banks?

Black money in Swiss banks -- Swiss Banking Association report, 2006 details bank deposits in the territory of Switzerland by nationals of following countries :

Top Five
1. India ---- $1,456 billion
2. Russia ---$ 470 billion
3. UK -------$390 billion
4. Ukraine - $100 billion
5. China -----$ 96 billion
Now do the maths - India with $1456 billion or $1.4 trillion has more money in Swiss banks than rest of the world combined.

Public loot since 1947: Can we bring back our money? It is one of the biggest loots witnessed by mankind -- the loot of the Aam Aadmi (common man) since 1947, by his
brethren occupying public office.
It has been orchestrated by politicians, bureaucrats and some businessmen. The list is almost all-encompassing. No wonder, everyone in India loots with impunity and without any fear. What is even more depressing in that this ill-gotten wealth of ours has been stashed
away abroad into secret bank accounts located in some of the world's best known tax havens. And to that extent the Indian economy has been stripped of its wealth.

Ordinary Indians may not be exactly aware of how such secret accounts operate and what are the rules and regulations that go on to govern such tax havens. However, one may well be aware of 'Swiss bank accounts,' the shorthand for murky dealings, secrecy and of course
pilferage from developing countries into rich developed ones.

In fact, some finance experts and economists believe taxhavens to be a conspiracy of the western world against the poor countries. By allowing the proliferation of tax havens in the twentieth century, the western world explicitly encourages the movement of scarce capital
from the developing countries to the rich.

In March 2005, the Tax Justice Network (TJN) published a research finding demonstrating that $11.5 trillion of personal wealth was held offshore by rich individuals across the globe. The findings estimated that a large proportion of this wealth was managed from some 70 tax
havens. Further,augmenting these studies of TJN, Raymond Baker -- in his widely celebrated book titled 'Capitalism' s Achilles Heel : Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free Market System' -- estimates that at least $5 trillion have been shifted out of poorer countries to the
West since the mid-1970.

It is further estimated by experts that 1 % of the world's population holds more than 57 % of total global wealth, routing it invariably through these tax havens. How much of this is from India is anybody's guess. What is to be noted here is that most of the wealth of Indians
parked in these tax havens is illegitimate money acquired through corrupt means.

Naturally, the secrecy associated with the bank accounts in such places is central to the issue, not their low tax rates as the term 'tax havens' suggests. Remember Bofors and how India could not trace the ultimate beneficiary of those transactions because of the secrecy
associated with these bank accounts?

IS THERE ANY ONE WHO CAN SAVE INDIA ?