Concerned over extraterritoriality practiced by some nations impacting emerging markets, Sebi Chairman U K Sinha today said the issue seriously needs to be taken up at international forums on various counts, including the fight against money laundering menace.
Extraterritoriality refers to certain exemptions granted to foreign entities from the jurisdiction of local law, and post the 2008 global financial meltdown came to involve the derivatives trade, especially in the US and EU.
"In their enthusiasm to take action post global financial crisis some national and regional bodies have come out with legislations for enactment which have serious elements of extraterritoriality. They are not only applicable for them or the jurisdictions but also outside their jurisdictions and have been enforced as law," Sinha said at an event here.
Also Read
"The issue of extraterritoriality is not being discussed in the international forum," he added.
Citing examples of derivative regulations in certain jurisdictions, Sinha said there are problems with emerging markets dealing with it.
"So we have to see are we guided by global standards mutually accepted upon or can national guidelines or regional guidelines have higher claim and one has to succumb under those things...Which would be superimposed," Sinha said.
He also said that anti-money laundering laws are not being guided by fair play as some countries have made alternate efforts to attract corporations to a particular jurisdiction.
"Those who are signatories to financial action task force have to follow certain common guidelines in relation to taxation and anti money laundering but we are seeing examples of superior or alternate efforts being made to attract corporations to a particular jurisdiction so how to come out with a predictable regime on global taxation is again not being guided by fair play. In some cases the effort is not only towards tax evasion," Sinha said.
He was speaking at 'Gateway of India Dialogue'.
Against the full bench order, the Sebi filed a writ
petition before Bombay High Court which disposed of the case by returning the matter back to the Central Information Commission with directions to decide the appeal expeditiously after giving personal hearing to the parties.
The Commission then asked all parties--petitioner (Agrawal), respondent (Sebi) and third party (Sinha)--to give their submission.
Agrawal in his submission to the Commission demanded that the Sebi chief disclose the information as it is the conflict of interest as Sinha, being the head of the market regulator, allegedly hold shares of publicly listed shares and mutual fund.
Sebi, in its response, said Sinha had been regularly filing his property returns which were being shared with the central government. The manner in which it can be dealt with and disclosed is a policy decision to be taken by the government of India with regard to all public servants.
"This policy decision was yet to be taken by the government. Whenever this decision taken, it will apply uniformly to all public servants and it will not single out one individual officer at the behest of malafide intention of the appellant," it had said.
Sinha, in his submission, said he has no objection to the statement of his assets and liabilities made public in pursuance of a government policy applicable uniformly to all public servants.
"However, he has objection to his being singled out for such disclosure at the behest of the appellant, who has a long history of filing vexatious petitions against him, major one of which had been dismissed by the Supreme Court," reads his response.
The appellant had contended that the chairman Sebi and other employees of the watchdog are investing in shares of the companies, thereby giving rise to conflict of interest and thus warranting disclosure of the information, as sought by him, in public interest.
"This contention is factually incorrect, baseless and deserves to be dismissed," Sinha said, refuting allegations raised by the appellant against him.
Taking into account all the submissions, the CIC in its latest order on Thursday denied disclosure of the information.
