“I will live with this pain, with this torment, for the rest of my life. I live in a tormented state knowing the pain and suffering I have created.”
“I write to you with deep regret, and a tremendous burden that I am carrying on my conscience. I am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land.”
Just to refresh your memory, the almost similar admissions of guilt were made by Bernie Madoff and Ramalinga Raju, respectively. While the former masterminded the largest Ponzi scheme in history, the latter has been accused of committing India’s biggest corporate fraud. Both frauds covered a long period of time undetected by regulators and the misdeeds became public almost at the same time — Madoff’s in December 2008 and Raju’s in January 2009.
But the similarities end there. Madoff was sentenced by a US court to 150 years in prison within six months, but Raju is out on bail a year and a half after his public confession.
What’s worse, Raju spent most of his prison term in the luxury ward of a hospital. There is also a broad hint that Raju may no longer stand by his public confession and the new line of argument is that the confession was not an admission of guilt, merely a statement of moral responsibility. With Raju’s bail, despite CBI’s plea that he could influence the 250-odd witnesses, all the 10 accused in the Satyam case are now out of prison.
Predictably, activists and sections of civil society have reacted with shock at the kid-glove treatment Raju and co. have received. Activists also feel that the country’s excruciatingly slow judicial system will allow Raju to escape punishment, or at least fade from public memory, in a repeat of what happened to Sanjay Agarwal of Hometrade or Ketan Parekh or countless others.
The shape of things to come was obvious from day one when even after his admission, Raju went scot-free until the Andhra Pradesh CID took him into custody, a day before he was supposed to depose before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). This was proof enough of how the system of information exchange between agencies was in disarray, allowing Raju to evade Sebi’s questioning.
While much of this is obviously true in a country where there are over 31 million pending cases, legal experts say much of the criticism of the regulators and the judiciary in the Satyam case may be over-reaction, reflecting the lack of understanding of the complexities involved.
First, Raju’s bail is not an exception. Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were let out on bail in 107 and 53 days, respectively. Since the CBI and others have already filed their charge sheets in the Satyam case, the question of investigations being hampered does not arise — at least legally. Moreover, there is no provision in law for pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period, specially for white-collar crimes.
Second, the start of the actual trial proceedings has been delayed because the CBI took time to produce a 30,000 page report on the Raju’s modus operandus. This was because the investigating agency wanted to probe a possible diversion of funds for which contacts had to be established with many countries for analysing details of Raju’s bank accounts abroad. Letters rogatory had to be sent to six countries for their reply. All this takes time.
Third, the doubts over Raju’s illness had no legal validity since the court cannot depend on mere perception. The hard fact that the court had to consider was the report by the hospital authorities that said Raju may have Hepatitis C and has bleeding in the brain, nose and liver. The risk to his life is compounded by Raju’s history of heart disease and hypothyroidism.
Fourth, the government has set up a special court for the Satyam case proceedings. So the argument that the case is being deliberately delayed is untenable.
The fact is that actual prosecution will still take time since the court could not have gone ahead with trial proceedings till the charge sheets are filed. Consider the work ahead. Legal experts say just questioning the 250-odd witnesses will take more than a year. Moreover, the court now has to go through a voluminous 65,000- page charge sheet which also has over 1,500 documents as evidence. After the trial court order, the aggrieved parties will have the option of going to the high court and the Supreme Court.
Legal experts say this means the final judgment in the case will take five to six years. In case you are shocked, it is good to remember that the US courts took the same time to deliver a 24-year jail sentence to former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.
