8 Indian Overseas Bank staff behind bars for job scam

Selvaraj A, TNN | Aug 2, 2014, 06.40AM IST

CHENNAI: The CBI on Thursday arrested eight Indian Overseas Bank employees holding key positions in a staff union for malpractice in the recruitment of sweepers and messengers at the bank's headquarters in Chennai.

Investigators said the accused forged SSLC certificates of the recruits to show that they had failed Class 10 and were not overqualified for the jobs. 

After CBI raids at their residences early this year, the employees were placed under suspension. "It was a sudden development in the case," a CBI officer said. "The arrested people had recruited sweepers and messengers in Chennai, Tuticorin, Karaikudi, Vellore, Salem and Thanjavur in 2010." Those arrested are IOB union state general secretary Chinni Krishna and assistant general secretaries Umapathy from Vellore, Rangarajan from Karaikudi, Swaminathan from Thanjavur, Balasubramanian from Chennai, Kandasamy from Salem, Thomas Balan from Tuticorin and Soundararajan from Puducherry. All of them are senior clerical cadre employees in various branches of the bank. The arrested were produced before the 11th CBI court in Parry's, where the judge remanded them in judicial custody till August 14. They were taken to the Puzhal prison.

Based on an input that many candidates managed to get appointment using fake certificates, CBI's anti-corruption branch in Chennai had registered a case and conducted searches on the bank's establishments in different parts of the state in May. 

IOB general manager (human resources) Indira Padmini said, "The matter is with the CBI. The people involved in the case were already under suspension." Inquiries revealed that many daily-wage workers had managed to get appointment letters with assistance from some union leaders after paying money. 

The officials said the allegation was that as many as 951 people recruited as daily-wage workers in the bank for several years were made regular in 2010. The educational qualification for the post of sweeper and messenger was SSLC failed. Many applicants who had passed SSLC or Plus-Two produced fake certificates claiming that they had failed in Class 10. 

Bank staff, chief arrested for multi-crore loan fraud

TNN | Aug 2, 2014, 06.21AM IST
SHIMOGA/ BANGALORE: Unearthing a multi-crore scam involving disbursal of gold loans by a cooperative bank, Shimoga police on Friday arrested 18 staff members of the Shimoga District Central Cooperative Bank (SDCCB), including its president Manjunath Gowda, for their alleged involvement in irregular practices. 

Gowda and the bank employees were charged with disbursing loans against fake gold, and in some cases, with no gold being mortgaged against the money advanced. According to a preliminary probe, the bank incurred a loss of Rs 68 crore for non-compliance with rules in issuing gold loans, which police feel may cross Rs 100 crore. 

The arrested were booked under sections 420 (cheating), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 408 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant in a bank) of the IPC, and 120B of Misappropriation of Bank Funds. 


The scam broke out early in July, after the bank's general manager Nagabhushan lodged a complaint with Doddapet police on July 15, alleging large-scale financial irregularities in the Amir Ahmed Circle branch in Shimoga city. 

Realizing the proportion of the fraud, Shimoga SP Koushalendra Kumar ordered a probe, and police seized several documents, including papers relating to illegal investment in various properties, gold-coated silver worth Rs 10 crore and cash. 

The issue figured in the legislative council on July 26, and cooperation minister HS Mahadev Prasad ordered a CID inquiry into the gold loan fraud across 28 branches of the SDCCB. 

When the fraud was first unearthed, it was found that only three bank staffers and the manager had sanctioned gold loans against deposits of fake gold, and in some cases, without any gold. A detailed investigation resulted in police arresting 18 persons, including Gowda, his driver, general manager and complainant Nagabhushan, seven staffers of the Gandhi Bazaar branch, five gold appraisers and two members of a rowdy group involved in underworld activities. 

A report on the arrests made and investigation so far was sent to the state government and Reserve Bank of India, the SP said. 

Don't worry, depositors told 

As news about the arrests spread, depositors started thronging the bank's branches to withdraw their deposits and pledged gold. These were small depositors who had pledged pure gold to avail of loans from the bank. 

Seethamma of KR Pet, a vendor, had availed of Rs 50,000 by depositing her valuables. She has been visiting the bank every day since the fraud came to light, and has even borrowed money to withdraw her pledged gold. 

According to officials of the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank, there is no need for depositors to panic as the SDCCB is a subsidiary and comes under the purview of RBI guidelines. The bank has total deposits to the tune of Rs 1,000 crore, with a turnover of Rs 1,800 crore. 

A senior police officer said all deposits would be returned to the investors with full maturity value, and the money defrauded will be recovered from the accused after investigation is complete. 

Rajya Sabha MP Ayanur Manjunath has written to Nabard, seeking supercession of the bank and inspection of its records by Nabard. 

Who is Manjunath Gowda? 

Manjunath Gowda, 56, was once a close associate of former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa. He was appointed vice-president of the Karnataka Janata Paksha (KJP), which the former CM founded after he fell out with the BJP.

Gowda contested from Thirthahalli assembly constituency in Shimoga district on a KJP ticket in the 2013 assembly elections, and lost by a narrow margin of 120 votes to primary and secondary education minister Kimmanne Ratnakar. When Yeddyurappa returned to the BJP, Gowda did not follow him. 

Bank of America fined $1.3 bn for mortgage fraud

AFP 4 Aug 14

A US judge Wednesday ordered Bank of America to pay a $1.3 billion penalty for selling bad loans to mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac amid the housing crisis.

The penalty comes after a New York jury in October 2013 found that Bank of America and Countrywide defrauded the two US mortgage giants in a lending program in 2007. Bank of America bought Countrywide in 2008.

The program was "from start to finish the vehicle for a brazen fraud by the defendants, driven by a hunger for profits and oblivious to the harms thereby visited, not just on the immediate victims, but also on the financial system as a whole," wrote US District Judge Jed Rakoff in the penalty order.

The US Justice Department alleged that Countrywide created the so-called "Hustle" program in 2007 as government-backed Freddie and Fannie were tightening their underwriting guidelines and loan purchase requirements in response to rising mortgage defaults.

Countrywide allegedly eliminated key checkpoints on loan quality and compensated employees solely based on loan volumes, leading to "rampant instances of fraud" as Countrywide informed the loan-finance firms that it had tightened requirements, the Justice Department said in court papers.

While writing that the fraud "more than warrants" the $1.3 billion penalty, Rakoff said Bank of America should not have to pay the full $3 billion associated with the 17,611 Hustle-generated loans purchased by Freddie and Fannie.

The reason is that a "meaningful" number of the loans were of "acceptable quality," the judge said. He cited a US government expert who estimated that 57.2 percent of the Hustle loans were not "materially defective."

Rakoff also imposed a $1 million penalty on Rebecca Mairone, a former Countrywide executive whom the jury found helped perpetrate the fraud.

The jury`s decision and the subsequent penalty "make clear that mortgage fraud cannot be viewed as simply another cost of doing business in the financial world," said US Attorney Preet Bharara.

A Bank of America spokesman criticized Rakoff`s order.

"We believe that this figure simply bears no relation to a limited Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America`s acquisition of the company. We`re reviewing the ruling and will assess our appellate options."

AFP

CBI court sentences bank officer to one-year RI in Chennai

4 Aug 14

The offiver forged signatures and misappropriated funds entrusted to him by crediting the money in the fake accounts and withdrawing the proceeds.

The CBI court on Wednesday sentenced a State Bank of India officer to a year’s rigorous imprisonment in a fraud case.

The anti-corruption branch of CBI, Chennai, registered a case against M. Murugappan, clerk-cum-typist at State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate branch, alleging he had cheated the bank by opening savings accounts in his relative’s names without their knowledge, during 1993-97.

He forged signatures and misappropriated funds entrusted to him by crediting the money in the fake accounts and withdrawing the proceeds.

He also destroyed evidence gathered against him. This resulted in the bank losing over Rs. 31 lakh.

Following trial, E.M.K. Siddharthar, XI additional special judge for CBI cases, convicted Murugappan and slapped a fine of Rs. 40,000 on him.

வங்கிகளில் வாராக்கடன் அதிகரிப்பு: சட்டங்களை கடுமையாக்க நிதியமைச்சகம் திட்டம்

 புதியதலைமுறை ஜூலை 31, 2014, 10:55:08 AM

வங்கிகளின் வாராக் கடன்கள் அதிகரித்து வரும்
நிலையில் கடன் வசூலிப்பு சட்டங்களை
கடுமையாக்க நிதியமைச்சகம் திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது.

இதன் ஒரு பகுதியாக கடன் வசூல் சட்டங்களில்
செய்யப்பட வேண்டிய மாற்றங்கள் குறித்த
பரிந்துரையை அளிக்க நிபுணர் குழு ஒன்று
அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. தற்போதைய கடன்
வசூல் சட்டங்களில் ஏமாற்றுவோர் தப்பிக்க
வழிகள் அதிகம் இருக்கும் நிலையில் இவற்றுக்கு
மாற்று வழிகளை நிபுணர் குழு கண்டறியும்.
நிறுவனம் நஷ்டத்தில் இயங்கினால்
அவற்றின் சொத்துக்களை பறிமுதல் செய்து
கடனை நேர் செய்யும் சர்ஃபாசி சட்டத்திலும்
இக்குழு திருத்தங்களை மேற்கொள்ளும்
எனத் தெரிகிறது. இந்தியாவில் 2 லட்சத்து
40 ஆயிரம் கோடி ரூபாய் வாராக் கடனாக
உள்ளது. கடனில் தத்தளிக்கும் நிறுவனங்கள்
பலவற்றின் உரிமையாளர்கள் செல்வச்
செழிப்பில் திளைப்பதும் ஆய்வுகளில் தெரியவந்துள்ளது.

Give copy of Rajesh Khanna's will to his former companion Anita Advani: Bombay High Court

31 July 2014 - 8:06pm IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: PTI

The Bombay High Court has asked Twinkle Khanna, daughter of the late Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna, to give a copy of probate proceedings and the probated will of her father to his former companion Anita Advani.

Justice RD Dhanuka, who yesterday allowed Advani to secure a copy of the will, also declined to stay his order for enabling an appeal. The late actor's two daughters, Twinkle and Rinkie, who are his legal heirs, had earlier moved the High Court to get his will probated (validated). Twinkle is married to actor Akshay Kumar.

Advani, who claims to have lived in with Khanna at his iconic suburban bungalow Ashirwad during the last two years of his life and looked after him, has challenged genuineness of the will, saying that he was not in the position to sign it at the time due to ill-health. Advani, through her lawyer Manohar Shetty, has sought revocation of probate alleging that the will has been forged.

Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas, who appeared for Twinkle, opposed Advani's plea seeking copy of the will, saying that she was neither a family member nor an heir.

However, the court held that no harm would be caused to Khanna's legal heirs if a copy was given to Advani. The heirs would get a fair chance to defend themselves before a decision is taken on Advani's plea against the probate, the judge said. Khanna, a yesteryear superstar, died on July 18, 2012.

The will names his daughters as the legal heirs; Twinkle has been also appointed as executor of the will. Some media reports had said recently that Khanna's bungalow had been sold off to a city-based businessman.

Advani's lawyer said she would be filing a petition before the High Court claiming a share in the late actor's estate, including the bungalow.

Cheque bounce – Stop payment – civil disputes – No offence in the absence of proof of hand loan

Cheque bounce – Stop payment – civil disputes – No offence in the absence of proof of hand loan – Hand loan – No calculations for arriving for total sum for which the cheque was issued – Non- enquiry about the sufficient funds in the account of accused – complainant is a worker – accused is a employee – suppression of actual deal – Trial court dismissed the case – High court reversed it – Apex court held that when the actual saving of complainant for annum is of Rs.10,000/- only and when is a worker under the complainant , it not believable that he gave hand loan about 4 years back to the employer by borrowing amount from Bank – in absence of rebuttal in cross examination of DW 2 mediator – clearly shows the cheque was stopped due to civil disputes = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 278 OF 2013 RAMDAS S/O KHELUNAIK … APPELLANT VERSUS KRISHNANAND S/O VISHNU NAIK … RESPONDENT = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41784

ADVMMOHAN ⋅ AUGUST 2, 2014 ⋅ 

FILED UNDER  COMPLAINANT

Cheque bounce – Stop payment – civil disputes – No offence in the absence of proof of hand loan –  Hand loan – No calculations for arriving for total sum for which the cheque was issued – Non- enquiry about the sufficient funds in the account of accused – complainant is a worker – accused is a employee – suppression of actual deal – Trial court dismissed the case – High court reversed it – Apex court held that when the actual saving of complainant for annum is of Rs.10,000/- only and when is a worker under the complainant , it not believable that he gave hand loan about 4 years back to the employer by borrowing amount from Bank – in absence of rebuttal in cross examination  of DW 2  mediator – clearly shows the cheque was stopped due to civil disputes =

whereby the High

Court set aside the Judgment and Order of the J.M.F.C. (II-Court),

Karwar acquitting the appellant herein of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short

‘the Act’). =

The case of the complainant

was that he had given a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused-

appellant and three and half years thereafter he had again given

Rs.25,000/- as hand loan, thus in all, the accused-appellant owed him

Rs. 1,75,000/- and to discharge this liability the cheque for

Rs.5,00,000/- was drawn, but the same stood dishonoured at the

instructions of the accused-appellant. =

Cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the appellant in favour of the

respondent was dishonoured by the Bank when it was presented for

realization by the respondent, as the appellant had instructed the

Bank to stop the payment.

After receiving such information from the

Bank, the respondent served a legal notice calling upon the appellant

to pay the Cheque amount.

Upon failure of the respondent to obey

the legal notice warranting him to pay the Cheque amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-, the respondent filed Complaint Case against the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act=

Whereas, the case of the

appellant before the Trial Court was that he had entered into an

agreement with the complainant to purchase 3 acres of land

belonging to the complainant for a total consideration of

Rs.10,00,000/- and for that purpose, an advance of Rs.30,000/- in

cash was paid and the Cheque in question for Rs.5,00,000/- was

handed over to the complainant in presence of B.S. Pai (DW 2).

When the complainant failed to execute the sale agreement and not

even willing to return the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- and the

Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-, he had to instruct the Bank to stop payment

against the said Cheque. =

Apex court held that

We find from the record that

admittedly, the accused appellant

deals with sale and purchase of landed properties and

the

respondent-complainant works as a Lorry Driver under him with a

salary of Rs.2,500/- p.m. and Rs.20/- per day towards miscellaneous

expenses (bhatta).

Admittedly, the Cheque in question was for

Rs.5,00,000/- and all the way the stand of the complainant was that

he had given a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused-appellant.

We find no material on record in support of the claim of the

complainant giving hand loan to the accused-appellant.

There was

also no calculation of account or stipulation of any interest on the

alleged loan amount to show as to how the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

was figured, in return of a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/-, if at all taken by

the appellant from the complainant.

It is also not on record whether

there was sufficient balance amount or not in the bank account of the

accused when the Cheque was dishonoured by the Bank.

The

complainant himself stated in the cross-examination that after the

Cheque was returned without payment, he has not made any enquiry

with the Bank as to whether sufficient funds were available or not in

the account of the accused.  

In the absence of any authenticated and

supporting evidence, we can not believe that the complainant-respondent

who is employed under the appellant -accused, has raised an amount of Rs.

1,75,000/- that too by obtaining loan of Rs.1,50,000/-  from Bank, only to give

a hand loan to his employer.

As the complaint himself admitted that his net savings

in a year comes to about  Rs.10,000/- ,it is not trustworthy that he was in a position to

extend hand loan of such big amount to the appellant

10. Whereas, the evidence of Mr. B.S. Pai (D.W. 2)

fully

corroborates the version of the appellant.

He deposed that the talks

of sale/purchase of 3 acres of land were held between the parties in

his presence.

The appellant agreed to purchase 3 acres of land

belonging to the complainant and the appellant had paid an amount

of Rs.30,000/- as advance and handed over a Cheque for

Rs.5,00,000/- .

It is also noteworthy that the complainant has not

rebutted the evidence of D.W. 2 in the cross examination. 

Further, the

firm and unshaken evidence of Mr. D.R. Bhat,

a member of the

Karwar Bar Association (D.W. 6) also corroborates the sale purchase

deal between the parties.

It is evident from the record that DW 6 has

clearly and categorically deposed that the appellant stated to him

about four years back that he had entered into an agreement with the

complainant in presence of B.S. Pai (DW 2) to purchase 3 acres of

land belonging to the complainant and also paid Rs.30,000/- in cash

as advance money and issued a Cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Looking

at the corroborative evidence adduced by the defence witnesses and

more particularly, in the absence of any material evidence in support

of the claim of the respondent-complainant, we cannot uphold the

impugned judgment.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be

allowed and is accordingly allowed.