NEW DELHI: The Bofors payoffs case controversy refuses to die. After the political row over defreezing two London bank accounts of Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, a key accused, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) finds itself grappling with some uncomfortable questions. This time, these are from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It has asked the agency to furnish full facts of the case relating to the defreezing of his accounts.

The two accounts, frozen in July 2003, contained $ 1 million and three million euros, suspected to be payoffs in the Bofors gun deal. Having superintendence over the functioning of the CBI under the Supreme Court guidelines in the 1997 Vineet Narain case, the CVC has called for facts — the charges against Mr. Quattrocchi — and asked whether it could review such cases.

Limited role

"Our role is limited. It ends with the culmination of investigation and filing of charge sheet. Since the Bofors case is pretty old in which the charge sheet has already been filed, we want to get the facts right. We can look at the present mechanism of our superintendence over the functioning of the CBI and see if it needs to be reviewed," Central Vigilance Commissioner P. Shankar told The Hindu here on Wednesday.

The CVC decided to ask for the facts of the case against Mr. Quattrocchi after some contradictory reports appeared in the media and as the CBI's stand remained unclear for some days. The question was under which section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the CVC was to exercise superintendence over the CBI, Mr. Shankar said.

Highly placed CBI sources said the agency was yet to receive a communication from the CVC. "As and when the CVC request comes, we will comply with it."

(According to a PTI report, following the Supreme Court's order to maintain status quo on the London bank accounts of Mr. Quattrocchi, the CBI is understood to have asked the British Crown Prosecution Service to refreeze the accounts. The CBI had on Monday conveyed the court's order through email to the CPS and later sent a copy.)

Difficult to reopen case

A solicitor firm has told CNN-IBN news channel that it will be very difficult for the CBI to reopen the case against the businessman and "refreeze" his accounts.

Mark Rondell of Picton Howell in London, was quoted by CNN-IBN as having told the channel: "Legally, this should be the end of the matter. It is very difficult to see how this can be taken forward now."

On the Supreme Court order to the CBI to take steps to refreeze Mr. Quattrocchi's accounts, Mr. Rondell said: "This does not mean anything here. This may be a directive to the CBI, but it has no effect on a U.K. court and nothing can be done to prevent the money from being taken out.'' Asked whether Mr. Quattrocchi had already taken out the money, Mr. Rondell said: "For all practical purposes, it is unlikely that the money is in the accounts. And it would solely be an academic exercise now to try and issue an order to refreeze Mr. Quattrocchi's accounts."

In a release here on Wednesday, CNN-IBN said Mr. Rondell claimed that all due procedures had been gone through before Mr. Quattrocchi's accounts were unfrozen. The CPS "reported all the facts that were presented to it by the Indian authorities. The court made its decision in the full knowledge of all the facts before it," the news channel quoted him as saying.

As the Bofors payoffs case and the `Q' saga take new turns and twists, privileged sources in the CBI and legal circles wondered why the agency moved the proposal in November last for sending a law officer and a CBI officer to London to explain "legal implications." The sources asked why the entire episode was handled hurriedly as there was no "urgency to facilitate the defreezing" of Mr. Quattrocchi's accounts.

The sources pointed out that the Swiss bank accounts of the Hinduja brothers, which had remained frozen for a number of years in the early 1990s, were unfrozen when for the first time the Delhi High Court quashed the Bofors FIR and re-freezed when the CBI cited the Supreme Court stay order to the Swiss authorities.

The sources claimed that the CBI's proposal to send the law officer to London was "merely to address some contentious issues" with the CPS which could have been done routinely. The agency could well have waited for replies to all its Letters Rogatory from the Swiss authorities on Mr. Quattrocchi's bank accounts. At whose behest did the CBI act in drafting the proposal to send a law officer and its own officer to London? Had it come across any new fact relating to the two accounts? Why could not the accounts remain frozen for a few more months until the CBI conclusively proved that the money contained in them indeed formed part of the Bofors payoffs? These and some more questions could well crop up when the Supreme Court hears the public interest litigation petition filed by lawyer Ajay Agarwal, on January 23.

CBI to seek extradition

UNI reports

The CBI on Wednesday said it would seek the extradition of Mr. Quattrocchi from Italy to face trial. Refuting the statement in a section of the press that the agency sleuths would go to Italy to interrogate him, a CBI spokesman said it would initiate the extradition proceedings with the Italian Government.

"Now, it is certain that Quattrocchi was hiding in Italy and we would take up the matter with the Italian Government," the CBI said.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu