Will 2G scam case go the Bofors way?
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in its progress report on the 2G scam submitted before the Supreme Court has claimed that there was prima facie no element of coercion found in licences issued between 2001 and 2007, thus providing some relief to former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran. (NDTV)
Seven months after the Central Bureau of Investigation asked telecom regulator TRAI to quantify the loss to the exchequer in the 2G spectrum case, the latter has said that it is not possible to predict with certainty the precise values of spectrum that would have emerged in an auction. (India Today)
The CBI has not been able to establish a money trail between Unitech Wireless and jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja to establish a quid pro quo. Two, it hasn't established a quid pro quo against Reliance Telecom either, nor has its chargesheet alleged any benefit to it. (NDTV)
The law ministry has told the department of telecom that a company can be an 'associate' of another only if it is a subsidiary and that two firms can be associates of each other if a parent company owns more than 50% stake in both, a stand that could weaken the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against some of the accused in the alleged 2G spectrum scam. (The Economic Times)
Sources in the investigating agency told TOI that though many more issues were under the scanner, it did not come across prosecutable evidence in most, including the alleged quid pro quo between Tata Realty and DMK over the reported transfer of Tata property, Voltas Building, in Chennai to the party at a throwaway price for favours in the allotment of 2G spectrum. (The Times of India)
I am sure the above mentioned news developments in the past week explains the title of this post. Is the so-called premier investigating agency of the country under tremendous pressure to let off the accused in the 2G case?
The agency has a history of building weak cases in various courts, thereby allowing the accused to go scot-free. Can the CBI explain that if there was no money trail between Unitech Wireless and former Telecom Minister A Raja, then why is Unitech boss Sanjay Chandra in jail without a bail.
2Gscam.in has in the past revealed how the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under Salman Khurshid tried to save Swan Telecom. Now the Law Ministry, interestingly under the same Salman Khurshid, "has told the department of telecom that a company can be an 'associate' of another only if it is a subsidiary and that two firms can be associates of each other if a parent company owns more than 50% stake in both, a stand that could weaken the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against some of the accused in the alleged 2G spectrum scam," The Economic Times reported.
What we are seeing here are clear attempts by the UPA government and its agencies to derail the investigations into the massive scam. The CBI has not yet charge sheeted Reliance Communications Chairman Anil Ambani despite the fact that three of the top executives of the company are in jail. How could these top executives have taken vital decisions regarding the company without the knowledge of Anil Ambani?
“The three persons charge sheeted are just the professional employees of the ADAG and are not the beneficiaries of this scam. The real beneficiary is Anil Ambani, who hold majority stake and is Chairman of the group companies. But Ambani has not been charge-sheeted. ADAG has reportedly claimed that these actions were done without the knowledge of Ambani. If this was true then he should have sacked the three charge sheeted employees,” the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an NGO, has said.
There are too many uncomfortable questions that the CBI will have to answer in the coming days. We will keep you updated on all the latest developments on the issue.
