00:00The Biden administration had a constant anti-India narrative running.
00:05There are senators there, I don't want to name them,
00:08who constantly have this India's bad on human rights,
00:12India's this, India's corrupt, all the time trying to paint India in a bad light.
00:16They said it was filed as a name and shame to design to levy acquisitions
00:20without any prospect of any trial occurring.
00:22It was a political move.
00:23DOJ reply filed before the concern, where DOJ made a strongest argument
00:29and raised the issue of jurisdiction, legal basis and time concern.
00:33How do you see that, sir?
00:35Yes, the most important thing I read is what it says in paragraph
00:43under heading A, sub-paras 6, it says, 4,
00:46it says the indictment was unsealed in the final days of the prior administration,
00:51apparently as a name and shame,
00:52designed to levy acquisitions without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring.
00:58This is what I have always said, at least I, it was my view,
01:02that the timing of this was such,
01:04the Biden administration had a constant anti-India narrative running.
01:11There are senators there, I don't want to name them,
01:14who constantly have this India's bad on human rights,
01:18India's this, India's corrupt, all the time trying to paint India in a bad light.
01:22And they were trying to pressure India and I don't think it's any secret
01:26that the Biden administration was not in love with India.
01:29So...
01:30If the DOJ now sees no merit in the case, why was it filed, sir?
01:35That's why they are saying.
01:37They said it was filed as a name and shame
01:39to design to levy acquisitions without any prospect of any trial occurring.
01:43It was a political move.
01:48Sir, the DOJ response is being called unjustly direct, sir.
01:52Do you agree, sir?
01:52It's blunt.
01:53See, because the judge,
01:55the attorney general's office obviously has taken offence.
01:59See, American English, the way they address courts and the way they write,
02:03it's very different from even the British here in England,
02:08the kind of language we use.
02:09And India, of course, is even more differential.
02:13America is more direct, even their judgments are in more direct language.
02:18So, you have to account for that.
02:20But even by the American standard, this is a pretty hard-hitting statement.
02:26And obviously, somebody took offence to the judge saying,
02:29your reasons are very terse.
02:30So, he's saying, yes, they should be terse and they are rightly terse, etc.
02:35Sir, how important is the DOJ claim that the case involved no U.S. companies,
02:40national security or criminal organizations?
02:42That's absolutely correct.
02:44I can't bear the doubt about that.
02:47Sir, what happened next?
02:50Obviously, he says that they had lots of people who carefully analyzed the evidence.
03:00And after the first section, they explained, they say in a limited waiver of privilege,
03:09they will explain why the charges were dropped.
03:13And he said, because you're asking me, I am telling you.
03:20And he said, there were a large number of attorneys who worked on the case.
03:28He started, then this is very important.
03:30He said, this white-collar case was indicted in late 2024 without first hearing from defense counsel.
03:36Now, you must know, unlike India and America, before filing a case,
03:41they talk to the defendant.
03:43Because many times, if they say, we have this case against you,
03:47even a defendant may say, okay, on charges A and B, I don't want to fight you.
03:51I don't want to fight you.
03:53I will plead guilty.
03:55And penalties are to be levied.
03:56Penalties are levied.
03:57You don't waste time at the court and make it so high profile.
04:03He has said, this was started before that was done.
04:06And what he writes is very important.
04:08He says, before I began in the office of the deputy attorney general,
04:13I have never heard of any of the defendants in this case.
04:19Some of the defense counsel requested a meeting to discuss the case.
04:23I made the decision to dismiss after conducting numerous meetings with defense counsel
04:29and also separate meetings with only department
04:32after reviewing hundreds of pages of materials prepared by both the defense
04:38and the department counsel after conducting my own research and analysis.
04:44And then he says, he puts them under the fraud charges.
04:47He puts them under foreign corrupt practices.
04:49And he gives you the reasons why he says this was a case which was bound to fail.
04:54The fraud was over broadly put.
04:57The charges, the FCPA charges, and he goes on to say,
05:02the FCPA charges have to be dismissed
05:07because they do not satisfy the memorandum that was issued by the attorney general.
05:12It was called a, it's something called, they call it a blanche memorandum,
05:16where the department-wide policy
05:19targeting enforcement actions, etc.
05:21And they said, even that was not satisfied.
05:23They should never have brought this case.
05:28And he says, we have no evidence.
05:30We will never be able to prove it.
05:32Yes, sir.
05:33So my last question would be, what can happen next, sir?
05:36Will the judge close the case soon, sir?
05:38I think he will have to.
05:39After this, he may have to.
05:41I mean, I don't see why he will not close it.
05:45Okay.
05:46Thank you so much.
05:47If he doesn't close, for them, it will become,
05:49they are raising it to a larger issue.
05:51In the end, by saying,
05:54it is the constitution wastes the prosecutorial power in the executive,
05:59not the judiciary.
06:00They are telling the judge whether to prosecute or not
06:02is for us to decide, not for you, sir.
06:04the constitution of the law.
06:04See you next time.
Comments