You are here
Home > Special Reports > Corruption: A worldwide phenomenon, but why? How to combat?

Corruption: A worldwide phenomenon, but why? How to combat?

Corruption is worldwide phenomenon. Earlier it was considered to be an Afro-Asian-Latin American phenomenon in the least developed economies, but now even the developed countries are facing the hydra headed problem. Corruption has engulfed all the arenas of life- politics, business and governance. Is it appropriate to conclude that there is a marked decline in the moral and ethical values in the world irrespective of the level of development of the countries or education level of the citizens? Or bestial human instincts were always present in the world, only their degree varied depending upon good governance or responsible citizenry? Is it because of the increasing role of big money in development? Is it because of globalization in which there are both kinds of places- strong and weak financial jurisdiction? There are also many tax havens difficult to be governed by central banks or world watch dogs? There are many complex factors at play and no single reason can be attributed to rise in corruption.

Corruption is mainly associated with siphoning off of public money for private gains and adopting illegal means to amass wealth such as evading taxes, indulging in drug and narcotic trade or human trafficking and running prostitution or child labour or bonded labour rackets. The public servants may seek kickbacks for delivery of services to people which is their legitimate right given to them by state. There are occasions when in government procurement or defence procurement officials compromise on the quality of products or allow over invoicing by the supplier for different kinds of benefits including hefty commissions. In a broader parlance corruption includes all kinds of compromises on moral and ethical standards.  Exploitation of junior women staff by office bosses, a doctor or teacher remaining absent from their duty and police allowing unsocial elements to encroach public space or perpetrate criminal activities for some monetary consideration.

Corruption is by product of lack of rule of the law, transparency and accountability, crony capitalism and authoritarian governments. It is also a byproduct of lack of good governance, criminalization of society and politics and coalition between political power, business and other  dominant interest groups over common people who are poor, ill educated and helpless. Common people may fall into the trap of corruption due to greed, ignorance or absence of an effective institutional delivery system and lack of judicial redress.

Right from Panama leaks to the impeachment of heads of Brazil and South Korea and Chinese government’s anti corruption moves are some of the evidences that show that corruption is very rampant in the world. There are big businesses in some countries which have been indicted for their involvement in corruption. Sometimes line between good and bad is so blurred with regard to involvement in corruption that today it is very difficult to say who is unblemished and morally correct and ethically firm and resolute.

Let’s see some of the recent cases just to find that corruption is all pervading without exception.

Some recent corruption cases

Panama Papers

The Panama Papers are 11.5 million leaked documents that detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. The documents, which belonged to the Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca, were leaked in 2015 by an anonymous source, some dating back to the 1970s. The leaked documents contain personal financial information about wealthy individuals and public officials which had previously been kept private. While offshore business entities are legal, reporters found that some of the Mossack Fonseca shell corporations were used for illegal purposes, including fraud, tax evasion, and evading international sanctions. “John Doe”, the whistleblower who leaked the documents to German journalist Bastian Obermayer from the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), remains anonymous, even to the journalists on the investigation as he insisted  “My life is in danger”. In a May 6 statement, John Doe cited income inequality as the reason for his action, and said he leaked the documents “simply because I understood enough about their contents to realise the scale of the injustices they described”.

He added that he has never worked for any government or intelligence agency. He expressed willingness to help prosecutors if immune to prosecution. After SZ verified that the statement did come from the Panama Papers source, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) posted the full document on its website.

Because of the amount of data, SZ asked the ICIJ for help. Journalists from 107 media organizations in 80 countries analyzed documents detailing the operations of the law firm. After more than a year of analysis, the first news stories were published on April 3, 2016, along with 150 of the documents themselves.The project represents an important milestone in the use of data journalism software tools and mobile collaboration.

The documents were quickly dubbed the Panama Papers. The Panamanian government strongly objects to the name; so do other entities in Panama and elsewhere. Some media outlets covering the story have used the name “Mossack Fonseca papers”.

In addition to the much-covered business dealings of British prime minister David Cameron and Icelandic prime minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, the leaked documents also contain identity information about the shareholders and directors of 214,000 shell companies set up by Mossack Fonseca, as well as some of their financial transactions.

Initial reports identified five then-heads of state or government leaders from Argentina, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates as well as government officials, close relatives, and close associates of various heads of government of more than forty other countries.The names of several then-current national leaders appear in the documents, including President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, and the Prime Minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.

Former heads of state mentioned in the papers include:

  • Sudanese president Ahmed al-Mirghani, who was president from 1986-1989 and died in 2008
  • Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani owned Afrodille S.A., which had a bank account in Luxembourg and shares in two South African companies. Al Thani also held a majority of the shares in Rienne S.A. and Yalis S.A., holding a term deposit with the Bank of China in Luxembourg. A relative owned 25 percent of these: Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, Qatar’s former prime minister and foreign minister.

Former prime ministers:

  • Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili of Georgia
  • Pavlo Lazarenko of Ukraine
  • Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, also a former vice president of Iraq, had Mossack Fonseca supply a nominee to stand in for him and screen his identity as owner of the Panama-registered company IMF Holdings. The company was dissolved in 2013 and owned a $1.5 million house near London. A second offshore, Moonlight Estates, registered in the British Virgin Islands, also held a property in London on his behalf. His media contact confirmed his sole ownership of the two companies and of Foxwood Estates as well, saying IMF was set up to own real estate on legal advice for security after an assassination attempt, and adding that any income was reported and taxes paid “promptly and on time.”
  • Ion Sturza of Moldova.
  • Ali Abu al-Ragheb of Jordan.

The leaked files identified 61 family members and associates of prime ministers, presidents and kings, including:

         the brother-in-law of China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping

         the son of Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak

         children of Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif

         children of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev

         Clive Khulubuse Zuma, the nephew of South African president Jacob Zuma

         Nurali Aliyev, the grandson of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev

         Mounir Majidi, the personal secretary of Moroccan king Mohammed VI

         Kojo Annan, the son of former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan

         Mark Thatcher, the son of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher

         Juan Armando Hinojosa, the “favourite contractor” of Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto.

         Spanish Royal Family: Pilar de Borbón and her son Bruno Gómez-Acebes, Iñaki Urdangarín, Amalio de Marichalar, and people close to the family like the mistress of Juan Carlos I, Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein.

Other clients included less-senior government officials and their close relatives and associates, from over forty countries. Over £10 million of cash from the sale of the gold stolen in the 1983 Brink’s-Mat robbery was laundered, first unwittingly and later with the complicity of Mossack Fonseca, through a Panamanian company, Feberion Inc. The company was set up on behalf of an unnamed client twelve months after the robbery. The Brinks money was put through Feberion, issued bearer shares only, and other front companies through banks in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Jersey, and the Isle of Man. Two nominee directors from Sark were appointed to Feberion by Jersey-based offshore specialist, Centre Services. The offshore firms recycled the funds through land and property transactions in the United Kingdom. Although Metropolitan Police raided the offices of Centre Services in late 1986 in cooperation with the Jersey authorities and seized papers and two Feberion bearer shares, it wasn’t until 1995 that Brink’s-Mat’s solicitors were finally able to take control of Feberion and the assets.

Actor Jackie Chan is mentioned in the leaked documents as a shareholder in six companies based in the British Virgin Islands.

Indians in Panama Papers

In 2014, it was Swiss Leaks, a global list with over 1,100 Indians with secret bank accounts in HSBC Geneva, which shaped the debate over black money parked overseas. In Panama papers, over 500 Indians figure on the firm’s list of offshore companies, foundations and trusts. There are also 234 Indian passports (handed over by clients as part of the incorporation process), an eight-month-long investigation of over 36,000 files by The Indian Express revealed. From film stars Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan to corporates including DLF owner K P Singh and nine members of his family, and the promoters of Apollo Tyres and India bulls to Gautam Adani’s elder brother Vinod Adani. Two politicians who figure on the list are Shishir Bajoria from West Bengal and Anurag Kejriwal, the former chief of the Delhi unit of Loksatta Party. From Mumbai ganglord the late Iqbal Mirchi, the list includes scores of businessmen with addresses in nondescript neighbourhoods in Panchkula, Dehradun, Vadodara and Mandsaur. Addresses of individuals, in many cases, The Indian Express found out, led to physical locations, but with no trace of the individual.

Corruption cases in China

Cadre corruption in China has been subject to significant media attention since Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping announced his Anti-corruption campaign following the 18th National Congress which was held in November 2012. Despite this high-profile anti-graft drive, in 2014 China was ranked No.100 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which is 20 places lower than 2013, when it ranked No.80. This puts China on par with Algeria and Suriname, and comparable to Armenia, Colombia, Egypt, Gabon, Liberia, Panama, Bolivia, Mexico, Moldova and Niger. China ranked less corrupt than neighbours Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nepal but more corrupt than  New Zealand, Singapore, India, Bhutan, Macau, Hong Kong and Mongolia. Means of corruption include graft, bribery, embezzlement, backdoor deals, nepotism, patronage, and statistical falsification. The CPC has tried a variety of anti-corruption measures, constructing a variety of laws and agencies in an attempt to stamp out corruption, but almost none have been proven to be even mildly effective.

Prominent individuals implicated in corruption in China include: Wang Shouxin, Yang Bin, Chen Liangyu, Qiu Xiaohua (the nation’s chief statistician, who was fired and arrested in connection with a pension-fund scandal), Zheng Xiaoyu, Lai Changxing, Lan Fu, Xiao Zuoxin, Ye Zheyun, Chen Xitong, Tian Fengshan, Zhu Junyi, Zhang Shuguang (a railways official, managed to steal $2.8 billion and move it overseas.

 According to a Xinhua report, China punished almost 300,000 officials for graft in 2015 as President Xi Jinping continued to wage a high-profile war against corruption. Among those ensnared by the wide-ranging crackdown were 200,000 who were given “light disciplinary punishments” and another 82,000 who were handed “severe disciplinary punishments and major demotions”. Ten “centrally appointed and administered officials” were given “drastic demotions” for serious violations against the Communist Party’s code of conduct. The code was identified by the party’s graft watchdog as a means to “spot problems earlier and prevent officials from slipping into corruption.” The figures cited China’s top discipline watchdog, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. The corruption crackdown has been one of President Xi’s key policies, although critics have questioned its lack of transparency and also claim it is more a tool to ensure potential rivals are removed from key positions. The CCDI rarely gives details on the evidence it uses when it publishes accounts of those ensnared in the graft crackdown, but there are daily reports in China on allegations of bribery and abuse of power among officials. Corruption is a major source of anger in China and Mr Xi has vowed to tackle high level ‘tigers’ and low level ‘flies’. Former Chinese security chief Zhou Yongkang  became the highest ranking former official in 2015 to be placed on trial for corruption in decades when he was sentenced to life in prison at a secret trial.

Prominent anti-corruption cases in China are often an outgrowth of factional struggles for power in the CPC, as opponents use the “war of corruption” as a weapon against rivals in the Party or corporate world. Often, too, the central leadership’s goal in cracking down on corruption is to send a message to those who step over some “unknown acceptable level of graft” or too obviously flaunt its benefits. Another reason is to show an angry public that the Party is doing something about the problem. The strict controls, placed on the media by the Chinese government, limit the discovery and reporting of corruption in China. Nevertheless, there have been cases of whistleblowers publicising corruption in China.

Impeachment of Dilma Vana Rousseff

Dilma Vana Rousseff,   a Brazilian economist and politician, the 36th President of Brazil from 2011 was impeached for breaking budgetary laws and removed from office on 31 August 2016. She was the first woman to have held the Brazilian presidency and previously served as Chief of Staff to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from 2005 to 2010. She was elected in a run-off on 31 October 2010, beating Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) candidate José Serra. On 26 October 2014 she won a narrow second-round victory over Aécio Neves, also of the PSDB. Impeachment proceedings against Rousseff were officially accepted by the Chamber of Deputies on 3 December 2015. On 12 May 2016, the Senate of Brazil temporarily suspended President Rousseff’s powers and duties for up to six months or until the Senate decided whether to remove her from office if found guilty or to acquit her of the crimes charged. Vice President Michel Temer assumed her powers and duties as Acting President of Brazil during her suspension. On 31 August 2016, the Senate voted 61–20 in favor of impeachment, finding Rousseff guilty of breaking budgetary laws and removing her from office.

In March and April 2015 millions of protesters took to the streets during the 2015 protests in Brazil against Rousseff’s alleged involvement in the Petrobras scandal which involved kickbacks and corruption. When allegations surfaced that graft occurred while President Rousseff was part of the board of directors of Petrobras, between 2003 and 2010, Brazilians became upset with the government and called for Rousseff’s impeachment. No direct evidence implicating Rousseff in the schemewas made public, and she denied having any prior knowledge of it. Rousseff’s presidency also saw a concerted push to complete a number of hydroelectric dam projects in the Amazon River Basin, despite appeals from residents of areas that would be flooded, drained or otherwise adversely affected, including indigenous tribes, and pressure from both domestic and international groups to abandon such projects. Opposition to the dam projects, especially the Belo Monte Dam project, was driven by environmental, economic and human rights concerns, the latter concerning both the people to be displaced by the projects and the workers brought in from other parts of Brazil to build the dams. Working conditions for laborers involved in these projects (which Rousseff  insisted should continue, and even be accelerated, with some sites seeing multiple work shifts so that construction can continue more than twenty hours per day) were harsh. Rousseff is less popular with the Brazilian LGBT social movements than expected from a left-wing president.

Impeachment of South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye

The Impeachment of President Park Geun-hye  was the culmination of a political scandal involving the level of access to the presidency by an aide. The impeachment vote took place on December 9, 2016, with 234 members of the 300-member National Assembly voting to impeach Park Geun-hye and suspend her from the office. As a result of the impeachment vote, Hwang Kyo-ahn, the Prime Minister of South Korea, became acting president for a term of up to 180 days while the Constitutional Court of Korea rules on whether to accept or reject the impeachment.

Revelations were made in late October 2016, that President Park Geun-hye’s aide, Choi Soon-sil, who did not have an official position in the government, had used her position to seek funds from several business conglomerates (known as chaebol), including Samsung, Hyundai, SK Group and Lotte, to two foundations she controlled. Allegations also surfaced about Choi’s access to Park’s personal and work life, where it was said to have directly influenced, and interfered with the policy of, the state council. The response to the Sewol ferry sinking accident that occurred on April 16, 2014 also contributed to Park’s declining presidential ratings. The procedure for impeachment is set out in the South Korean Constitution. According to Article 65 Clause 1, if the President, Prime Minister, or other state council members violate the Constitution or other laws of official duty, the National Assembly can impeach them. Clause 2 states the impeachment bill must be proposed by one third, and approved by the majority of the total members of the National Assembly for passage. In the case of the President, the motion must be proposed by a majority and approved by two thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly, meaning that 200 of 300 members of the parliament must approve the bill. This article also states that any person against whom a motion for impeachment has been passed shall be suspended from exercising his power until the impeachment has been adjudicated and a decision on impeachment shall not extend further than removal from public office. Provided, that it shall not exempt the person impeached from civil or criminal liability.

On December 8, the South Korean National Assembly announced that the vote of motion to impeach would take place on December 9.  As planned, on December 9, South Korean MPs approved the impeachment motion by a vote of 234 in favor and 56 against in a secret ballot. As a result of the impeachment motion passing, President Park is suspended from the presidency for up to 180 days while the Constitutional Court of Korea decides about the validity of impeachment motion. Six of the nine judges on that court must agree with the impeachment for the removal to take effect. If the court agrees with the impeachment, it would be the first time that a sitting president is removed from the office since the Sixth Republic of South Korea was set up after the country’s democratization. Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn has taken charge of the office of the presidency at 19:30 Korean Standard Time, on an interim basis. If Park leaves office early for any reason – whether through the impeachment being approved by the Constitutional Court or through her own resignation – a new presidential election must take place within 60 days.

Bribery Charges on Lee Jae-yong, Samsung Heir

The de facto leader of Samsung, Lee Jae-yong, was arrested on February 17, 2017 on bribery charges, a dramatic turn in South Korea’s decades-old struggle to end collusive ties between the government and powerful family-controlled conglomerates. Mr. Lee, Samsung’s vice chairman, was taken to a jail outside Seoul, the capital, soon after a judge at the Seoul Central District Court issued an arrest warrant. He is accused of paying $36 million in bribes to President Park Geun-hye’s secretive confidante, Choi Soon-sil, in return for political favors. Those are alleged to include government support for a merger of two Samsung affiliates in 2015 that helped Mr. Lee, 48, inherit corporate control from his incapacitated father, Lee Kun-hee, the chairman. Samsung, whose market capitalization accounts for one-fourth of the value of all listed companies in South Korea, is a potent national symbol of power, wealth and technological innovation. Mr. Lee is the first head of the conglomerate ever to be arrested on corruption charges. Other charges against him include embezzlement, illegal transfer of property abroad and committing perjury during a parliamentary hearing. The head of Samsung, one of the world’s largest conglomerates, was indicted on bribery and embezzlement charges on February 28, becoming one of the most prominent business tycoons ever to face trial in South Korea.

The indictment of Lee Jae-yong, the company’s de facto leader, came at the end of a special prosecutor’s 90-day investigation of a corruption scandal that has already led to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. When huge crowds took to the streets in recent months to demand that she leave office, they also called for the toppling of Mr. Lee and other corporate titans.

South Koreans have grown weary of endemic corruption and the country’s traditional leniency toward tycoons accused of white-collar crimes. For decades, presidents have entered office vowing to end such favoritism, but they all eventually backtracked. Anticorruption advocates say Mr. Lee’s indictment and trial will be a test of whether the system can finally make a dent in those cozy relationships.

Sahara Family Investment Fraud Case

Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case is the case of the failure of Subrata Roy-led Sahara India Pariwar to return Rs 24,000 crore plus interests to its investors as directed by the Supreme Court of India, after a prolonged legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. On 26 February 2014, the Supreme Court of India ordered the arrest of Subrata Roy, chairman and founder of Sahara India Pariwar, for failing to appear in court in connection with the Rs. 24,000 crore deposits his company failed to refund to its investors as per a Supreme Court order, after a legal dispute with the Indian market regulator SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India). He was eventually arrested on 28 February 2014 by Uttar Pradesh police on a Supreme Court warrant. In a statement after the arrest, his lawyer said Subrata’s 92-year-old mother was in poor health and needed her eldest son by her side, and hence he failed to appear at the court. He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on 26 March 2014 on the condition that he would deposit Rs 10,000 crore with SEBI. Subrata was eventually taken into judicial custody and sent to Tihar jail, along with two other Sahara directors, on 4 March 2014 for failing to deposit Rs 10,000 crore with SEBI. In Tihar jail, Subrata unsuccessfully tried to sell some of his hotel properties to raise Rs 10,000 crore for his bail bond. He remained in Tihar jail for more than two years, and was released on parole in May 2016 to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. November 2010 – Securities and Exchange Board of India barred Sahara India Pariwar chief Subrata Roy and two of its companies – Sahara India Real Estate Corp (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corp (SHIC) – from raising money from the public as they had raised several thousand crores through optionally fully convertible debentures (OCFDs) that SEBI deemed illegal. In January 2011, the Delhi High Court issued a warrant against Sahara India Pariwar chairman Subrata Roy and four other officials of the group on a complaint that it deceived investors in a proposed housing project of Rs. 25,000 crore. October 2011 – Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), set up by the Supreme Court, ordered two unlisted Sahara group companies to refund within six weeks about Rs. 17,656.53 crore with 15% interest, which it had raised through OFCDs.  In January 2012, the Supreme Court gave three weeks time to Sahara India Pariwar to choose between options to return investments made by public in its OFCD scheme. Sahara to either to give sufficient bank guarantee or attach properties worth the amount raised through OFCDs. In August 2012, the Supreme Court directed Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. (SIRECL) and the Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. (SHICL) to refund over Rs. 24,400 crore to its investors. In  March 2015, the Supreme Court stated that the total dues from Sahara have gone up to Rs 40,000 crore with the accretion of interest. July 2015 – SEBI cancelled the licence of Sahara’s mutual fund business.

NSEL case

The NSEL (National spot Exchange Ltd) scam or NSEL fraud was a systematic and premeditated fraud perpetrated in the commodity market from 2007 to 2013 by the Jignesh Shah owned National Spot Exchange (NSEL), a private company based in Mumbai, India. The NSEL was a company promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd and the NAFED (only 100 shares given for misusing the NAFED brand who was touted as a co-promoter). The NSEL scam was a Ponzi scheme and is estimated to be a Rs. 5600 crore (around US$0.95 billion) fraud that came out to light after the National Spot Exchange failed to pay its investors in commodity pair contracts after 31 July 2013. 13000 investors from India lost about Indian Rupees 5600 Crores when the fraud was discovered and it was found that NSEL had neither the money nor the stocks to pay them back.

The Forward Markets Commission in July 2013 asked NSEL to stop all trades extending 11 days settlement (which were illegal). This led to less interest from investors and renewing their contract and the wheel of roll-over trades came to a halt as NSEL could not raise fresh investor funds to pay old investors whose funds were maturing. It was discovered after the exchange defaulted on 31 July 2013 that most of the underlying commodities did not exist and the buying and the selling of commodities like steel, paddy, sugar, ferrochrome etc. was being conducted only on paper. The pair trades in various commodities were offered in one-day forward contracts of T+2 and T+25 (sometimes even T + 35) payment terms (bought and sold at the same time).

Such pair trades offered an arbitrage opportunity of about 12-15% return per annum. The investors, who honored the T+2 payment obligation, found that the National Spot Exchange neither had the money, nor the commodities, to honor their T+25 dues. Around 24 borrowers were given the funds by the NSEL, without any underlying commodity deposited by those borrowers. One of those borrowers who borrowed around Rs. 1000 crores is a company named NK Protein Ltd., and is owned by the son-in-law of the former Chairman Shankarlal Guru of NSEL.

An estimated number of 13000 investors, along with public sector units like MMTC and PEC, were victims of this NSEL scam. The ROC report on NSEL fraud has come down heavily on the promoters and the FTIL, as it was found that a majority of minutes of meetings of the NSEL board were fabricated, as cell phone location data of the said board members did not match to the meetings’ locations. Some of the warehouses mentioned on the NSEL website were found to be physically non-existent, and the SGF (Settlement Guarantee Fund) – of around Rs 839 crores (about US $140 Million), as on 29 July 2013, vanished into thin air.

Anjani Sinha, the sacked CEO and the MD of the company, attempted to take the blame for the fraud in order to exonerate other promoters, and filed an affidavit. Mr. Anjani Sinha’s wife, Shalini Sinha, though being a related party, traded on MCX for about Rs. 40000 crores in one year through her company SNP Designs P Ltd. However Anjani Sinha after arrest retracted his earlier affidavit and filed a fresh affidavit pinning the blame on the board of NSEL stating that they fully knew what was going on at NSEL. Anjani Sinha in his police statement however claimed that his wife Shalini Sinha is a small garment designer and the trades done by IBMA under the name SNP Designs were actually speculative trades done on MCX by Jignesh Shah himself. He also claimed there was no financial dealing between IBMA and SNP designs whatsoever. Surprisingly Anjani Sinha whom the promoters blamed as the main culprit was kept with NSEL by Jignesh Shah for almost 12–13 weeks after the scam as a ‘special office recovery’ showing the collusion between the two.

All said it seems that corruption is a cancer afflicting the society which is obsessed with material advancement and where values, ethics and morality are considered to be hindrances in progress and success and where short cuts to big name, fame and glory are preferred paths. Lack of monitoring and supervising institutions as well as lack of transparency and accountability is major reasons of corruption. Corruption is not only a Law and order problem, but it involves sabotage of a good system, none compliance of law, siphoning and plundering public money due to greed and selfishness. The world has started taking a move forward for transparency and accountability with the help of rules and regulation on one hand and education on the other for attitudinal change. Institutional changes and a proper system of monitoring, evaluation as well as deterrence and incentives would go a long way in tackling the problem of corruption.

Leave a Reply