On February 7, a top secret message from India's envoy to Argentina Pramathesh Rath to Secretary West Nalin Surie saw officials move with unusual alacrity. Surie walked over to Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon's office and briefed him on the contents. Menon immediately brought it to the notice of Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee. What it contained strangely spread a veil of secrecy from South Block across the city to the CGO complex headquarters of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Literally, no one knew how else to react but sit on the information of the arrest of Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian businessman and the only accused left in the Bofors scam. He had been arrested the previous day on an Interpol red corner notice at the Iguazu airport in Misiones, Argentina, on his way to Brazil.  | | | | | Q. Why was Quattrocchi's arrest kept a secret? | | Q. Why didn't the CBI act on his detention immediately? | Q. Why has he not been extradited from Italy so far? | Q. Can he now be brought from argentina to face trial in India? | | Q. why is he still so important? | | It would be a good 17 days later, and only after the news had been leaked to the media, that the CBI would confirm to the nation on February 23 that Quattrocchi had in fact been arrested. But even that was not the whole truth. For, on that very day he was released on bail against a $10,000 (Rs 4.4 lakh) surety to a Buenos Aires court-something the CBI would admit only three days later on February 26. The agency was duty-bound to reveal the news of Quattrocchi's arrest to the Supreme Court on February 12 when the court was hearing a special leave petition demanding, among other things, that the Italian be brought to trial in India. Strangely, the CBI had kept mum. Meanwhile, the Buenos Aires court impounded Quattrocchi's passport and ordered him not to leave the country. Why is the Italian fugitive so important to India? Simple. For the Congress, especially UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, his absence or presence raises the spectre of the Bofors scandal, equipping the Opposition NDA with endless ammunition to fire away at the ruling party. That the Government was on the back foot was evident from the manner in which the entire Congress machinery geared up to defend its inaction. Union minister and lawyer Kapil Sibal claimed, "There was no delay and neither did we hush up anything. We had not informed the Supreme Court about Quattrocchi's arrest as the case before the court pertained to an unrelated case." Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared: "I solemnly affirm, this Government has done nothing wrong and no one will be allowed to meddle with the legal process." The Opposition, however, remained unconvinced as was the Left. "The Congress will have to explain the delay and ensure Quattrocchi is extradited and brought here to face the courts," said Brinda Karat, CPI(M)'s Politburo member. | FULL CIRCLE
Over a decade of intrigue, insinuation and incrimination later, the Q factor in the controversial Bofors deal continues to evade the law, helped along by sluggish investigation | | | | FEBRUARY 1984: The CCPA clears purchase of Bofors guns. In 1986, a Rs 1,437-crore contract is signed with Bofors for supply of the 155 mm guns, days before the brokerage agreement with Q's AE Services was to expire. | | DECEMBER 22, 2005: ASG B. Dutta requests the Crown Prosecution Services to defreeze Q's London accounts. Money is withdrawn. | | FEBRUARY 4, 2004: Delhi High Court exonerates Rajiv Gandhi (below), Bhatnagar and Chaddha. The court clears Hindujas (above) on the technical ground that the CBI had failed to submit the original documents relating to the arms deal. The CBI does not file any appeal in the Supreme Court. | | APRIL 16, 1987: Swedish Radio breaks Bofors scam. Later, a SNAB report says payments were made as "winding up costs". | | JANUARY 22, 1990: FIR under Sections 420 IPC and 120B and the PCA filed against Martin Ardbo, Win Chaddha and the Hindujas. No mention of Q. | | JULY 23, 1993: Jubilee Finance, Svenska accounts linked to Q, Chaddha and Hindujas. Q leaves India within six days. | | JULY 25, 2003: Q's $4.5 million (Rs 21 crore) stashed in BSI AG accounts in London are frozen. | | OCTOBER 22, 1999: First chargesheet against Q, Chaddha (above), S.K. Bhatnagar and Ardbo. Rajiv Gandhi also named. | | The Government, however, continued to shoot itself in the foot. Parliament Affairs Minister Suresh Pachauri stated in Parliament that India did not have a extradition treaty with Argentina. But Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani pointed out that Pachauri appears to have overlooked the existence of one such treaty from the colonial period. Advani claimed that the treaty signed in 1889 was still in force because it had been mentioned both in the bilateral treaty documents presented to Parliament in 1981 and also in the Interpol list. "The treaty was not notified in 1962 when the Indian Extradition Act came into existence and, therefore, stands abrogated. A fresh treaty has to be negotiated," Sibal insisted. But that still begged the question as to why the Government hadn't pushed for Quattrocchi's extradition as was done for Abu Salem with Portugal when no treaty existed. Moreover, extradition is possible under the Argentinean Extradition Act on a reciprocal basis. Under pressure, the Government finally began to move. But such was the sensitivity of the case that the extradition files, usually routed through junior officers in the mea, were personally carried by Additional Secretary Sharat Sabbharwal and Joint Secretary, Consular P.M. Meena to the Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed, who is designated to ink the extradition request. He put his signature on the formal request to the Argentinean Government on February 27, four days after the file was sent to the mea by the CBI. One of the excuses for the delay was that it took time to translate the document into Spanish. (Apparently, Jawaharlal Nehru University's foreign languages department was also roped in to prepare the 300-page document required to be presented in Spanish in Argentinean courts.) That was just one in a series of goof-ups by the Government in what is being seen as an effort to shield Sonia and, thereby, the Congress from embarrassment. Around the same time last year, Quattrocchi was literally laughing his way out of a bank in London with $4.5 million (Rs 21 crore) in hand even as the Supreme Court in Delhi was directing the CBI to ensure his accounts remained frozen. The Italian's accounts in the BSI AG Bank in London had been frozen in July 2003 by the British Government on the CBI's request after the money was linked to Swiss accounts of AE Services, the company owned by Quattrocchi which allegedly received the Bofors kickbacks. In December 2005, the Law Ministry, through Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta, however, advised the Crown Prosecution Services to defreeze Quattrocchi's accounts citing lack of evidence. And on January 11, 2006 the Queen's High Court decided to lift the Restraining Order against the funds. Reluctance to proceed against Quattrocchi is understandable. Ever since the Indian government, then headed by the late Rajiv Gandhi, signed the Rs 1,437-crore contract with Swedish giant AB Bofors to purchase 155 mm Howitzers, the deal has become synonymous with corruption at the highest levels. The cases against Quattrocchi pertain to sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is accused of cheating the government by not declaring himself a Bofors agent and conspiring with government officials to receive kickbacks. The cases against all the other accused-from Rajiv and Win Chaddha to S.K. Bhatnagar and the Hinduja brothers-have since then fallen through on one ground or the other. Not a single case against anyone could be made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Hindujas escaped because the CBI had failed to provide original contract documents to the Delhi High Court. The UPA Government, almost predictably, did not file a special leave petition against their acquittal in the Supreme Court-a move that will no doubt benefit Quattrocchi. So where does the case stand? A CBI team is in Argentina. It has employed a new lawyer after obtaining fresh arrest warrants against Quattrocchi from a court in Delhi. But can he be extradited? His lawyer Alejandro Freeland in Buenos Aires says, "It's absurd. The affair dates back 20 years and the alleged offences have already expired under Argentine law in any case." Sources in the mea are also not very upbeat because there is still confusion over the existence of an extradition treaty. The legal fraternity is sceptical about a safe passage in Argentinean courts. "Quattrocchi is likely to plead that all the co-accused have been let off and that he has even withdrawn the money from his accounts which was supposed to be crucial evidence," says senior lawyer Diljeet Titus. Quattrocchi had also been let off by the Malaysian High Court in 2002 when India failed to extradite him due to poor evidence. The NDA was in power then, and the Congress uses this to get back at the BJP. Argentina may also not be inclined to extradite nationals of a third country. Quattrocchi may, in fact, be allowed to proceed to Italy. Besides, India will also have to prove dual criminality. Which means that corruption cases for which Quattrocchi has been chargesheeted should also be punishable under Argentinean law. Why does India not extradite him from Italy where Quattrocchi lives in comfort in Milan? Curiously, successive governments made little effort to move the Italians on this count. Negotiations for an extradition treaty with Italy were initiated in 2001 when the NDA was in power. But progress has been tardy. Even though there have been several high-level visits, including one by Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi in February 2007, the treaty was never put on the agenda. This, despite the fact that it is almost a norm now to have extradition treaties with as many countries to nab wanted criminals. India already has treaties with 25 countries and is negotiating with another 25, including Italy. However, if the Government is serious this time around, the only option would be to extradite him through what is known as an ad hoc extradition arrangement. It would require the CBI, along with the Foreign Office, to make an extradition request with preliminary evidence and also demand a provisional arrest of Quattrocchi. This has to be followed by a formal extradition request with supporting evidence within 60 days. After that, the host country, in this case Italy, will examine the case and the seriousness of the charges. Besides, Delhi will also have to prove dual criminality. Italy has in the past refused to extradite its own nationals and it may invoke that clause even if Delhi takes up the extradition arrangement with its government. When Quattrocchi was being detained in Argentina, his son Massimo was in Delhi as part of Prodi's delegation. He is an investment adviser and facilitates tie-ups, something his father excelled at. Through statements to the media, he has let it be known that neither he nor his father are unduly worried about the case. The fact that he is operating in the country of his birth freely speaks volumes about his confidence in the system. Unfortunately for the Congress, even 20 years later the Bofors scam remains a bogey. The UPA and the CBI will have to do better than reel out figures and excuses. But perhaps they are working on the premise that Quattrocchi in Argentina is better than Quattrocchi in Delhi. -with Priya Sahgal Index |
![](../grfx/trans.gif"){kind=spacer}
