A tall story from a small township in Tamil Nadu has once again served up the a land of many, if not exactly a million, scams. There were many animated headlines when T.M. Ramalingam, a small rice bran and coconut trader from Dharapuram, in Tirupur district, was found to possess ‘US government bonds’ with a face value of $5 billion (`28,000 crore). Given the fantastic sums, there was an excited clamour: was Ramalingam a front for political slush funds? Was he seeking the limelight—or was he trying to perpetrate fraud?
In Chennai, income-tax officials probing the case are hesitant to point fingers with any great finality just yet, but they do tell a bizarre story of how several people seem to have traded the ‘US bonds’ for paltry sums when looking at their face value, reinforcing the suspicion about their genuineness. “Some of the banks have informally told us that the bonds are not genuine but they are also not very sure,” say the I-T officials investigating the case.
Here’s how it played out: a few days before the December 31 I-T raid at Ramalingam’s single-storey house, revenue officials received a tipoff that the 46-year-old class 10 dropout was trying to trade the US bonds through an intermediary at an international bank, which got suspicious. When the raid team reached Ramalingam’s house, they found a few individuals from Sea Distributors, a Kochi-based tile dealer and the middlemen.
As things stand, the bonds issue has been referred to the ministry of external affairs to get confirmation from experts in the US central bank. The investigating team has also approached the international bank where Ramalingam’s middlemen had gone to trade the bonds. Outlook’s query to the US Treasury Department failed to elicit any clarification, barring a brief line stating, “I’d refer to the Secret Service on this.” And Reserve Bank of India sources said as the central bank can’t undertake any criminal investigations, only the Enforcement Directorate would be able to comment. “The RBI will only come into the picture if any action is required.” Ramalingam (who has insisted on his innocence) was not available for comment.
The probe has revealed that Ramalingam received the US bonds in Dubai from a Brazilian national named Daniel in mid-2011 for $1 million. Ramalingam did not pay in cash, though, but rather through a cheque which bounced. In addition, Ramalingam also tried to fob off Daniel with some fake Chinese gold bonds he had got from Muthu Veerappan, a retired tehsildar now living in Singapore with his married daughter.
During his interrogation, Veerappan said the original owner of the Chinese ‘bonds’ was a Mehboob Ali of Tirupur who sold it to him for `500. Veerappan said he had given them to Ramalingam free of cost (as he found them to be freely available in Singapore; they could even be downloaded from the internet). “So far, Daniel has not got any of his promised money, while Ramalingam was trying to use the middlemen to encash the US bonds,” says Mohan.
Reports of Ramalingam’s plans to set up a refinery near his hometown are, according to Mohan, just a ruse to get publicity. Now he could face tax challans for the undisclosed wealth—apart from a multi-billion dollar headache.
In business, a person is supposed to make the greatest profit. It is a perception of insecurity, when a person is told, you have failed to make an appropriate profit, and he is a businessman. Now, if I was a businessman, and people tell me, that you are a bad businessman, and not because of the amount of profit, then the insinuation is, that people have been associated with your profit, who had nothing to do with your business. Now, in India, this is always valid, and this has always been valid all over the world. If this has been generally accepted, then wherein lies the issue? Can the answer be defined, or be seen as a definition of the action of business?
One wishes that Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department together investigate the wealth of this Tirupur businessman and what has prompted him to keep in possession fake Treasury Bonds of US government. Obviously, this must be a big racket which needs to be unearthed with a thorough probe. The Income Tax office should make public its important findings after the probe is completed.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT