Bribes to foreign government officials are often paid by
companies through third party contractors or consultants.
Unmistakable red flag and hot smoking gun, why would General Electric Company appoint Aartech Consultants as its international sales representative and enter into an international sales representative agreement with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited?
Unmistakable red flag and hot smoking gun, why would General Electric Company appoint Aartech Consultants as its international sales representative and enter into an international sales representative agreement with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited?
"According to a recent global
fraud survey, approximately 90 percent of reported FCPA cases involve third
parties acting for or on behalf of a company, including (typically) business
development agents, consultants, distributors, advisors, sales affiliates, and
other intermediaries. FCPA enforcement actions brought by DOJ and SEC
demonstrate that third parties are frequently used to facilitate or conceal the
payment of bribes to foreign government officials in all types of international
business transactions."
According to the Association of
Corporate Counsel:
"In
FCPA jargon, an "intermediary" is a third party who assists the
company in some aspect of its foreign business. The government assumes
you have conducted reasonable due diligence background investigations on your
intermediaries and have determined they are not involved in corruption. It is
important to understand who your intermediaries are, how many you have, why you
are using them, and who in your company has authority to enter into a contract
with them.
This application numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7197/ 2013 in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 is available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzdLbTmYqfPvbllhT0NQNF9xWFU/edit
"Issue of payment of bribes by General Electric using a third party contractor called Aartech Consultants India Private Limited
125. It is submitted that there are facts and evidence which prima facie establish the need for an investigation by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act and by United States federal authorities (under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) as to whether General Electric has paid bribes or illegal payments at any time in the last twelve years to any public official in India in connection with its efforts to get a government contract to supply locomotives to the Indian Railways. Besides the facts and evidence described above, there is evidence that touches directly upon the likelihood that bribes have been paid by General Electric to public officials and that in particular, a third party (a shell company named Aartech Consultants India Private Limited) has been used as the conduit to transfer these bribes and to launder the bribe-money on behalf of the recipients.
126. The petitioner sent the following complaint on June 10, 2011 describing payment of bribes and FCPA violations by General Electric in India involving a third party contract with an entity called Aartech Consultants Private Limited.
“---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra
<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:11 PM
Subject: FW: Concerns about GE and
possible FCPA violations
To: pmosb@pmo.nic.in
Cc: tka.nair@pmo.nic.in,
jmg.vc@nic.in, r.sri_kumar@nic.in, mr@rb.railnet.gov.in, dch@nic.in,
g.haldea@nic.in, crb@rb.railnet.gov.in, mm@rb.railnet.gov.in,
jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE,
Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Dear Sir,
I would to like to share some further
concerns about GE Transportation India and corruption. Please see my email
below. Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
________________________________________
From: Seema Sapra
[mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 10 June 2011 13:08
To: ffetf@usdoj.gov;
chairmanoffice@sec.gov;help@sec.gov; fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov; askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com;john.flannery@ge.com;
'Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)'
Subject: Concerns about GE and
possible FCPA violations
Dear Madam/ Sir,
Some further evidence about GE
corruption in India.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
________________________________________
From: Seema Sapra
[mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 10 June 2011 12:41
To: 'Denniston, Brackett (GE,
Corporate)'; 'Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)'
Cc: 'Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE,
Corporate)'; jeffrey.immelt@ge.com; john.flannery@ge.com
Subject: Concerns about Aartech
Consultants and FCPA
Mr. Denniston/ Mr. Dimitrief,
I want to place on record my concerns
about a third party contractor that GE Transportation India was using, an
entity called Aartech Consultants. I shared this concern with Mr. Eglash when I
spoke with him on 29 November 2010. I asked Mr. Eglash - what did this
consultant do for GE? Unsurprisingly, Mr. Dimitrief’s letter of 3 February 2011
does not mention Aartech Consultants.
I first learnt about Aartech
Consultants when in June 2010, I received an email asking me to review the
documentation for Aartech’s ITP (Independent Third Party) contract that was up
for renewal. I reviewed it and found there were reputational red flags that had
been identified. Plus Aartech’s application was old and the answers to certain
questions were unclear or potentially wrong. I spoke to Himali Arora, the CFO
about this. She then pointed out that Aartech had a networth of approx. Rs.
30,000 which was also odd. I discussed the matter with Himali Arora and Ashwani
Bhargava, who was handling compliance and was based in Bangalore. I then
declined to approve the renewal unless these matters were reviewed and
addressed.
The Aartech Consultants representative
was one Sikh gentleman who visited the AIFACS office. I was never introduced to
him and never spoke with him. On different occasions, I saw him sitting with
Prat Kumar, Ash Nainar and Himali Arora. Plus he seemed to know most other GE
Transportation employees at AIFACS well.
There is a very distinct possibility
that Aartech Consultants was being used to make illegal payments to Indian
Railway officials.
I was told by Anand Chidambaram in
August that Aartech Consultants had good contacts within the Indian Railways
and helped GE move files within the Indian Railways. I was also told that
Aartech got a commission of 5% on every deal.
I fail to understand why GE would need
an external contractor to help move files in the Indian Railways. GE
Transportation India had sufficient human resources to undertake all legitimate
interactions with the Indian Railways in GE’s business dealings and tender
applications. What services did Aartech Consultants provide?
Even though Aartech Consultants’
contract renewal with GE did not go through in June 2010, the gentleman in
question still visited AIFACS. I was told by Ashish Malhotra in August 2010
that despite the non-renewal of Aartech’s contract, GE documentation still
showed that Aartech was being paid 5% commission for the turbocharger tender
that GE had won. GE was having internal compliance problems with the terms and
conditions of this deal and I remember hearing Prat ask Alpna Khera, Himali
Arora, Ashish Malhotra and Anand Chidambaram to enlist Aartech Consultants’
support in getting the Indian Railways to relax certain terms, for example,
getting the Indian Railways to agree to a liquidated damages provision.
Did you investigate whether any
illegal payments were routed through Aartech Consultants by GE? Was there a
violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? What services did Aartech
provide? What payments did GE make to Aartech Consultants? Were these
justifiable?
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra”
127. The petitioner sent another email complaint dated June 15, 2011 about FCPA violations by General Electric and the use of a third party contractor (Aartech Consultants India Private Limited) to pay bribes and kickbacks to Indian government officials in exchange for bid manipulation with intent to award the lucrative contract for the proposed diesel locomotive factory to General Electric.
“From: Seema Sapra
[mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 15 June 2011 09:10
To: pmosb@pmo.nic.in
Cc: tka.nair@pmo.nic.in;
jmg.vc@nic.in; r.sri_kumar@nic.in; mr@rb.railnet.gov.in; dch@nic.in;
g.haldea@nic.in;crb@rb.railnet.gov.in; mm@rb.railnet.gov.in;
jeffrey.immelt@ge.com; john.flannery@ge.com; 'Denniston, Brackett (GE,
Corporate)'
Subject: FW: Additional information on
Concerns about GE and possible FCPA violations
Dear Sir,
I would like to provide additional
information about corrupt activities by GE Transportation in India. Please see
attached.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
________________________________________
From: Seema Sapra
[mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 14 June 2011 18:16
To:
ffetf@usdoj.gov;chairmanoffice@sec.gov; help@sec.gov; fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov;
askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com;
john.flannery@ge.com; 'Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)'; 'Dimitrief,
Alexander (GE, Corporate)'; 'Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)';
fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Subject: Additional information on
Concerns about GE and possible FCPA violations
Dear Madam/ Sir,
Please find attached internet search
results for Aartech Consultants, the independent third party contractor that GE
Transportation India was using to liaise with the Indian Railways. Aartech
Consultants shows up in search results as a recruitment agency.
I emailed about Aartech Consultants on
10 June 2011. (Before I sent my email, I googled “Aartech Consultants”and all
the search results described it as a recruitment firm.) When I googled Aartech
Consultants again on 13 June, the “recruitment” links did not show up. However,
they still show up if you do not enter the full name. Instead there were 3-4
results that now describe Aartech as a business consultancy. Screen shots of
these internet search results are attached.
The representative from Aartech
Consultants who visited the GE office was Mr. Inderjeet Singh. He does not seem
to hold any special qualifications that might have qualified him to provide any
consulting services to GE. Plus he seems to be the sole representative and
employee.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra”
128. Paragraph 14 of Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 reads:
“The Petitioner has complained that
Respondent No. 6 had entered into a third party contract with an entity called
Aartech Consultants India Private Limited (hereafter referred to as Aartech)
and that this contract was used to facilitate illegal payments and to pay
bribes to Indian government officials. This would amount to offences of
corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also constitute a
violation of the Unites States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Petitioner
raised several red flags that call for an investigation. In June/ July 2010,
the Petitioner (while still at GE) was asked to review and authorize a renewal
of the contract between Respondent 6 and Aartech. The Petitioner found some red
flags and deferred authorization until these red flags were addressed. First,
Aartech had a total share capital of less than Rs. 50, 000. Second, GE’s
routine internet and reputational searches conducted under GE’s internal Third
Party Contract Authorisation Policy had found certain reputational red flags.
Third, Aartech’s application was outdated and seemed non-compliant. The
Petitioner was later told by Mr. Anand Chidambaram, an employee of Respondent 6
that Aartech helped GE move files in the offices of the Indian Railways and
received a 5% commission on every contract. The Managing Director of Aartech is
one Mr. Inderjit Singh who was the main contact for GE and appeared to be the
sole employee/ representative of Aartech. Mr. Inderjit Singh is a graduate and
does not have any educational/ professional/ technical qualifications or
expertise that would make him qualified to provide business consultancy
services to GE in respect of GE’s rail transportation business. Further since
leaving GE, the Petitioner found internet search results for Aartech and Mr.
Inderjit Singh that featured Aartech as a provider of recruitment consulting
services. This raises a red flag suggesting money laundering. Given that other
evidence and documents point to several instances of corrupt contact between GE
employees and Indian Railways officials, these red flags about a third party
contractor (Aartech) call for an investigation into the nature of services
being provided by Aartech to GE, into whether payments made to Aartech were
inflated and into whether Aartech was acting as a conduit to bribe Indian
government officials.”
129. In its purported counter affidavit dated July 3, 2012 filed in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012, General Electric has admitted that “GE India” has an International Sales Representative Agreement with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited. General Electric further states in the said counter affidavit that its agreement with Aartech is a “bonafide commercial contract completely unrelated to the Indian Railway tenders in question”. General Electric describes its dealings with Aartech as an “innocent act of GE’s Indian affiliate contracting with a local Indian business on matters completely unrelated” to the Madhepura, Marhowra and Dankuni Projects/ tenders. I state that General Electric is again misrepresenting facts and except for the admission that it has had dealings with Aartech, these statements in General Electric’s counter-affidavit are lies and intended to cover up the petitioner’s complaints without any kind of investigation. Mr K R Radhakrishnan, who has filed the false counter affidavit purportedly on behalf of GE without authority documents has committed perjury by stating these blatant falsehoods on oath.
130. In August 2010, while the petitioner was still employed by General Electric, she had looked at the third party contracts that GE Transportation had entered into globally. All these contracts (which were mandatorily required by internal General Electric policies to go through a rigorous compliance review process under and in accordance with a written and detailed Independent Third Party Contract General Electric Policy document) were listed on the webpage of the internal General Electric website that was used by the GE Transportation legal team. The contract between General Electric and Aartech Consultants was listed under these contracts on GE Transportation’s Legal Team website. This website is maintained by the office of the General Counsel for GE Transportation based in Erie, Pennsylvania in the United States and is hosted on General Electric’s US servers.
131. In its counter affidavit dated July 3, 2012 filed in CWP 1280 of 2012, General Electric states that GE India has entered into an International Sales Representative Agreement with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited. The counter affidavit further describes this contract as “GE’s Indian affiliate contracting with a local Indian business”. These statements are false. The contract between General Electric and Aartech was a contract between GE Transportation (a business unit of General Electric Company, a US corporation) and Aartech, otherwise this contract would not be available on the US website of GE Transportation.
132. Some background as to how General Electric’s business in India is organised is required. Until recently, General Electric’s business in India was not consolidated into an India unit. The Indian business unit was set up only after Mr John Flannery was sent to India at the end of 2009. The actual business reorganisation into an India business unit did not formally take place until July 2010. Therefore during the months of May, June and July 2010 when the petitioner was working for GE Transportation in India, she was reporting on a functional basis (legal) to the General Counsel for GE Transportation, who at that time was Ms. Tara Plimpton. The petitioner was reporting on a business basis to Mr Pratyush Kumar, who was employed by General Electric Co. or by GE International and who in turn reported to Mr Lorenzo Simonelli, the CEO of GE Transportation. The second most senior GE Transportation executive based in the New Delhi office of GE Transportation was Mr Ashfaq Nainar, who was also employed by the parent company, General Electric Co. and who reported to Mr David B. Tucker of GE Transportation.
133. The petitioner was asked to review and approve the renewal of General Electric’s contract with Aartech in June 2010 as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation in India. The request for approval of this contract was not sent to the petitioner by GE India’s corporate office in Gurgaon or by GE India employees working for GE Transportation in the General Electric office at Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Instead the request emanated from the Erie-based headquarters of GE Transportation in the United States. The petitioner was sent an internet work flow link on the General Electric US website where the existing contract with Aartech was uploaded along with the results of the third party contract due diligence processes and the approvals (with justification) already obtained from the business and commercial executives who in General Electric language “owned” this contract. (For the record, the petitioner had not been given access to the website for GE India as she did not require this access for her work. The petitioner had been given access rights to the US website of GE Transportation). The petitioner was asked to review all this documentation and give the approval for a renewal of Aartech’s contract in her capacity as GE Transportation’s Legal Counsel for India. The business and commercial approvals for the renewal of Aartech’s contract were given by Mr David Tucker and Mr Ashfaq Nainar. Mr David Tucker and Mr Ashfaq Nainar had made the commercial case for General Electric to renew the contract with Aartech. Both Mr David Tucker and Mr Ashfaq Nainar are employees of General Electric Co. and are part of GE Transportation. Mr David B. Tucker is Vice President, Global Sales Operations for GE Transportation, a business unit of General Electric Company. This contract between General Electric and Aartech was therefore a contract between GE Transportation in the United States and Aartech Consultants India Private Limited. It was this contract that was being used by General Electric as a conduit to make illegal payments as bribes to Indian government officials.
134. In an attempt to cover up the petitioner’s complaint, Mr K R Radhakrishnan has lied under oath in General Electric’s purported counter affidavit when he states that the contract with Aartech was an innocent business contract between GE India and a local Indian business (Aartech). Mr K R Radhakrishnan does not name which GE company signed the contract with Aartech. Instead he uses the vague term “GE India”. If the contract with Aartech that was up for renewal in June 2010 was a contract with “GE India”, then this contract would not have been sent to the petitioner for renewal approval by GE Transportation in the US and neither would Mr David Tucker or Mr Ashfaq Nainar have been involved in giving business and commercial approvals for such renewal. Instead of coming clean and owning up to an evidence-backed corruption and FCPA complaint that requires investigation, General Electric has attempted to cover-up and bury the issue.
135. What is absolutely clear is that GE Transportation had entered into a third party contract with Aartech before 2010 and this contract was subsequently being considered for renewal in June 2010.
136. To further expose the lies in General Electric’s counter affidavit in its attempt to cover-up the complaint regarding its contract with Aartech, it is pointed out that the said counter affidavit states that the contract with Aartech is unrelated to the Indian Railway tenders. The counter affidavit states that General Electric has an international sales representative agreement with Aartech, but it evasively does not disclose what business or product this agreement covers.
137. The petitioner was told in August 2010 by Mr Anand Chidambaram (Chidambaram Balakrishnan) a General Electric executive with the GE Transportation India team that Mr Inderjeet Singh, the managing director of Aartech Consultants India Private Limited used to be or was a small supplier to Indian Railways and therefore had good contacts within Indian Railways and helped General Electric ‘move government files’. The LinkedIn profile for Mr Inderjeet Singh, the managing director at Aartech Consultants India Private Limited, shows his industry as “Transportation/Trucking/Railroad”.
138. Why would GE Transportation appoint Aartech Consultants India Private Limited or Mr Inderjeet Singh as its International Sales Representative? Mr Inderjeet Singh has a graduate degree from St Stephen’s College. Neither he nor Aartech have any international business experience in the rail sector. Mr Inderjeet Singh has no professional or technical qualifications that would qualify him to act as GE Transportation’s international sales representative. GE Transportation has a large sales team spread all over the world wherever GE Transportation’s customers are. Why would GE Transportation need to appoint a small supplier to Indian Railways as its international sales representative?
139. In an attempt to cover-up its murky and corrupt dealings with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited, General Electric in its false counter-affidavit dated July 3, 2012 in CWP 1280/2012 has avoided replying to or even acknowledging any of the facts or evidence presented by the petitioner, and instead has made vague, evasive and false statements. General Electric has not disclosed which General Electric company signed the contract with Aartech or which industry sector or product was serviced by the international sales representative contract with Aartech.
140. All that the said counter affidavit states is that General electric’s agreement with Aartech is “completely unrelated to the Indian Railway tenders in question”. This statement is false and constitutes another instance of perjury by Mr K R Radhakrishnan who has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of General Electric. While the written contract between GE Transportation and Aartech might not mention the multi-billion dollar Indian Railway tenders for the Madhepura, Marhowra and Dankuni Projects, General Electric’s admission that it appointed Aartech as its international sales representative confirms that the third party contract between General Electric and Aartech was used to bribe Indian Railways officials and to pay kickbacks to Indian government officials in exchange for and as quid pro quo for the manipulation of bid processes and bid documents as part of a criminal conspiracy to award the contract for the Marhowra locomotive factory Project to General Electric.
141. Mr Inderjeet Singh was a regular visitor to the New Delhi office of GE Transportation on Rafi Marg during the period the petitioner worked with General Electric in 2010. During these visits, Mr Inderjeet Singh remained closeted with Mr Pratyush Kumar and Mr Ashfaq Nainar for considerable lengths of time. On several occasions, Mr Inderjeet Singh met Mr Pratyush Kumar alone. Mr Inderjeet Singh also met the CFO for GE Transportation in India (Ms Himali Arora) and knew all the employees in GE Transportation’s Delhi office well. In 2010, Mr Pratyush Kumar headed GE Transportation’s India operations. He was not responsible for any business activities or sales by GE Transportation outside India.. The message from Mr John Flannery and General Electric’s US bosses was that without new business from the Marhowra Project, GE Transportation’s India office might be disbanded or considerably under-sized. The India team of GE Transportation did not have much business in India in the rail sector where its only customer was Indian Railways. They were only engaged in a small spare part supply business (these spares were imported from the US) and had a small turbocharger refurbishing business. The petitioner was told by Mr Manish Batra, Vice President (Tax) at GE Corporate India that the worst performers at GE India were housed in the GE Transportation India team and that they had an “athanni-chavanni ka business”. The fact that Mr Inderjeet Singh met Mr Pratyush Kumar and was in frequent touch with the latter in May, June, July and August 2010 shows that Mr Inderjeet Singh was working for GE Transportation in connection with General Electric’s bids for the Marhowra, Madhepura and Dankuni tenders. Mr Pratyush Kumar was entirely focussed on the Indian Railways tenders for the Madhepura, Marhowra and Dankuni Projects. In 2010, Mr Pratyush Kumar job responsibilities at General Electric were limited to India, so why was he in frequent and regular contact with Mr Inderjeet Singh, who GE describes as its international sales representative? What did Mr Inderjeet Singh and Mr Pratyush Kumar discuss during their interactions in 2010?
142. The above facts establish that General Electric is hiding that Aartech Consultants India Private Limited had a contract with GE Transportation in 2010 and that Mr Inderjeet Singh from Aartech was in regular touch with Mr Pratyush Kumar in connection with General Electric’s bids for the 2010 tenders for the Marhowra, Madhepura and Dankuni Projects. General Electric’s contract with Aartech was not a bonafide commercial contract but was a contract that General Electric was using as a conduit to pay bribes and kickbacks to Indian government officials.
143. General Electric has not addressed any of the evidence adduced by the Petitioner in connection with her complaint concerning Aartech. General Electric has also failed to answer any of the questions raised. Instead General Electric has resorted to a cover-up in its counter affidavit through fake outrage at the petitioner’s complaint and attempts to discredit the petitioner by smearing her and questioning her motives.
144. The petitioner has produced internet search results (which are available on the court record in this petition) that show Aartech Consultants India Private Limited as a recruitment consulting firm. Screen shots of these internet search results and of web-pages showing Aartech as a recruitment firm have been emailed to General Electric and copies have also been filed in the Delhi High Court in CWP 1280/ 2012. Why is General Electric Company’s international sales representative showing up in internet searches in cheap advertisements for manpower recruitment? This is a red flag that points in the direction that Aartech Consultants India Private Limited is a shell company being used to transfer bribes to Indian public officials by General Electric Company.
145. According to General Electric’s own internal compliance policies and compliance training guidance, such evidence in case of third party contractors raises a red flag that the third party contract in question might not be bonafide but instead a vehicle to transfer bribes and payments that are illegal under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to launder such bribes. Yet instead of acknowledging this evidence, General Electric in its counter affidavit dared July 3, 2012 makes the following statement: “the Answering Respondents deny that the purported Internet searches allegedly conducted by the Petitioner long after her brief consultancy of a few months with GE India are in any way indicative of money laundering”. It is submitted that these internet searches and search results and webpages are neither purported nor alleged. Screen shots of these internet searches have been emailed to Mr Brackett Denniston, the General Counsel of General Electric Co on his official GE email address. Printed copies and soft copies of these internet search results have been produced as part of additional documents filed before the Delhi High Court in CWP 1280 of 2012 and these have been duly served on the law-firm AZB that is purportedly claiming to represent General Electric in CWP 1280/ 2012.
146. It is submitted that General Electric’s own internet reputational searches for Aartech carried out under its own Independent Third Party Policy in 2010 raised red-flags which among other reasons prompted the petitioner to withhold approval for the renewal of this contract in June 2010 acting in her capacity as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India. This evidence was available on General Electric’s US servers in 2010 with the work-flow link that was sent to the petitioner.
147. Can General Electric explain why the International Sales Representative for GE Transportation (Aartech Consultants India Private limited) is in the business of providing recruitment services in India? Can General Electric explain what are the qualifications and criteria on the basis of which it has appointed Aartech Consultants India Private Limited as its International Sales Representative? Can General Electric disclose what services have been provided to General Electric by Aartech Consultants India Private Limited and what payments have been made to Aartech by General Electric over the last 12 years?
148. The petitioner has adduced sufficient evidence to support her complaint that General Electric was using its third party contract with Aartech to pay bribes and kickbacks to Indian government officials in order to win the multibillion dollar tender for the proposed diesel locomotive factory in Marhowra. Yet General Electric has ignored this evidence and states through a false counter affidavit that no case is made out for any investigation into Aartech’s dealings with General Electric or with the Indian Railways. It is submitted that besides the evidence described above which establishes that General Electric was using Aartech as a conduit for bribes and as a facilitator of corrupt dealings with Indian government officials, General Electric’s false statements and evasions in its false and unauthorised counter affidavit provide further confirmation that the Petitioner’s complaint has substance and that General Electric is still covering up this matter.
149. The petitioner points to a very curious statement in General Electric’s counter-affidavit: “The Answering Respondents further state that no investigation by the Answering Respondents has revealed any evidence of the allegations made by the Petitioner in respect of Aartech”. In the very next sentence, the counter affidavit states (to paraphrase) that the petitioner has not placed on record any proof to substantiate these complaints and has not made out any case for investigation into Aartech. These statements are a piece of verbal sophistry intended to mislead the court and cover-up this matter. The petitioner’s first complaint about Aartech was made in June 2011, four months after General Electric completed its alleged internal investigation. So General Electric has admittedly not investigated the complaint about Aartech. Yet it wants to mislead the court that it has done so. Therefore the counter affidavit states “no investigation by the Answering Respondents has revealed any evidence of the allegations made by the Petitioner in respect of Aartech” It is pointed out that this sentence does not state that the complaint against Aartech was investigated, instead it attempts to mislead the court by referring to unconnected investigations which did not look into the Aartech complaint. The fact is that despite substantial evidence (as described in the petitioner’s complaints sent to General Electric in June 2010, in the writ petition, in the rejoinder affidavit dated July 9, 2012 filed by the petitioner in CWP 1280/2012, and hereinabove) that calls for a full investigation into General Electric’s dealings with Aartech, General Electric has not investigated these complaints. Instead of an investigation, General Electric has caused false statements to be made on oath before this court and has obfuscated facts about its dealings with Aartech. This attempt to obfuscate the facts and mislead the court about the nature of General Electric’s dealings and its contract with Aartech, confirms that General Electric has much to hide and is covering up its corrupt association with Aartech Consultants India Private Limited. These lies in the false counter affidavit purportedly filed on behalf of General Electric are further evidence of the need for a full investigation into the use by General Electric of its third party contract with Aartech for the payment of bribes and kickbacks. Instead of dealing with the facts and evidence of corruption and bribes with integrity and honesty, the fake exhibition of excess outrage by General Electric in its false and unauthorised counter-affidavit (while not a single fact is adequately rebutted or even acknowledged and several lies are stated) is a giveaway of the cover-up General Electric is engaged in.
150. The Petitioner highlights the following
i. General Electric has admitted that
it appointed Aartech as its international sales representative.
ii. Aartech is a shell company, with a
miniscule bank balance, with no track record of similar assignments or
experience, with a suspicious internet profile, with no staff, with a
residential address as its office, with a principal (Inderjeet Singh) who has no
qualifications to render him eligible for this role, and who appears to be an
associate of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia (both appear to have been contemporaries
at St Stephen’s College and would know each other) and Mr Montek Singh
Ahluwalia is not only in a position to but has been accused by Government of
India officials of pushing for award of this contract to General Electric on
favourable terms.
iii. General Electric has been making
payments to Aartech.
iv. The petitioner was asked to
approve the renewal of General Electric’s contract with Aartech, such approvals
are the job of in-house counsel according to General Electric’s compliance
policies, and now General Electric in affidavits filed in this writ petition
claims that the petitioner was not an in-house counsel but was merely an
external consultant on a short-term contract. (The petitioner was also asked to
approve a third party contract for General Electric in Pakistan). Why then was
the petitioner asked to approve the renewal of General Electric’s contract with
Aartech when this is a job that is supposed to be performed by in-house counsel
at General Electric under General Electric’s supposedly sacrosanct “compliance
policies”?
v. Several well-founded and evidence
backed complaints have been made from several sources (not just the petitioner)
that the impugned tenders are plagued by corruption, tailor-made tenders,
manipulated bid processes and bid documents, huge unjustifiable concessions by
the government, lack of transparency and accountability, mid-way rule changing,
altered and misquoted minutes of government meetings, allegations of ‘bananna
republics’ and ‘con-games’, agendas to compromise the interest of the Railways,
allegations of conflict of interest, allegations of by-passing designated
government officials etc., all pointing towards corruption that has benefited
or was intended to benefit General Electric.
vi. Most bribes are paid through third
parties using fake contracts or shell companies to transfer payments.
vii. GE Transportation does not
manufacture anything in India or export from India so it obviously does not
need an international sales representative based in India like Aartech
especially when it has dedicated senior sales staff here.
viii. All of GE Transportations’s sales/
contracts in India are to/with the Railway Ministry and follow a public tender
process so a third party sales representative like Aartech is not needed.
ix. GE Transportation India CEO
(Pratyush Kumar) is present in India only to win new business like the Marhowra
tender. There is no other business in India for GE Transportation that would
call for a third party sales representative like Aartech.
x. General Electric is reluctant to
investigate its dealings with Aartech even in the face of all this evidence.
xi. General Electric has attempted to
subvert these proceedings by using a lawyer (without a vakalatnama) to file a
false counter affidavit (signed and verified by an unauthorised person) to make
false statements under oath in an attempt to cover up the complaints concerning
Aartech and the complaints of other illegalities.
xii. Employees/ lawyers of General
Electric have had the petitioner drugged and poisoned and have attempted to
have her murdered while simultaneously smearing her ...
151. The facts related establish that
the petitioner’s complaint that General Electric has paid bribes to Indian
government officials and to Indian public officials using its contract with
Aartech Consultants India Private Limited as a conduit to transfer and launder
these bribes is substantial enough to justify a full investigation."