COMPANY LAW FIRM ADVOCATES,CRIMINAL LAWYERS,CIVIL & PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

Explained: Cognizant bribed govt officials in India, to pay $25-mn penalty

Explained: Cognizant bribed govt officials in India, to pay $25-mn penalty

Cognizant had withheld $17 million of payments to an Indian construction company to apply pressure and secure permissions from authorities in Tamil Nadu for its Chennai campus

Two former high-ranking executives of technology major Cognizant have been charged by US prosecutors with allegedly paying Tamil Nadu government officials $2 million in bribes to get building permits for the company’s Chennai campus.
US-based Cognizant has agreed to pay $25 million to settle charges towards violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said. 
The criminal charges filed on Friday against Cognizant's former President Gordon Coburn, 55, and former Chief Legal Officer Steven Schwartz, 51, in a federal court in Newark, New Jersey, relates to the construction of the 250,000-sq-metre KITS campus in Chennai's Sholinganallurits for the company's Indian subsidiary. The two executives left the company between September and November 2016 and have denied any wrongdoing. Details about illegal payments emerged from the US indictment order which charged Coburn and Schwartz of approving illicit payments to Indian officials.
The prosecutors did not identify the Tamil Nadu officials or the construction company through which the alleged bribes were routed. However, a Livemintreport said that the Nasdaq-listed company routed the bribes through Larsen & Toubro (L&T) in the three years to 2015. "The construction arm of India’s largest engineering company made illicit payments and Cognizant reimbursed the money by disguising it as compensation for cost overruns," Livemint reported.
What is the bribery case all about?
The complaint alleges that a senior Tamil Nadu official demanded $2 million bribe in 2014 from the construction firm responsible for building Cognizant's 2.7-million-square-foot campus in Chennai. As alleged in the complaint, Cognizant's President Gordon Coburn and Chief Legal Officer Steven E Schwartz authorised the contractor to pay the bribe and directed their subordinates to conceal the bribe by doctoring the contractor's orders.
According to the indictment, in April 2014, Coburn and Schwartz allegedly authorised an unlawful payment of approximately $2 million to one or more foreign government officials in India to secure and obtain necessary permits to open a new office campus. To conceal Cognizant's involvement in the scheme, Coburn, Schwartz and others allegedly agreed that a third-party construction company would obtain the permit by making the illegal bribe payment and that Cognizant would reimburse the construction company through phony construction invoices at the end of the project.
To increase pressure on the contractor to pay the bribe and get the permit, Coburn directed that payments to it be frozen till all the permits were received, the complaint said.
The contractor "appointed a new liaison consultant to process the approval", which came through in June 2014, and to hide the payments "a fake version of the claims list" was created to reimburse the contractor, court documents said.
The Mint report says in "2013, Cognizant India instructed L&T to pay $770,000 in bribes to a Maharashtra government official for seeking environmental clearance for a campus in Pune. Finally, L&T again paid $870,000 in bribes to government officials for construction-related permits in Siruseri, Chennai in 2015, again on behalf of Cognizant."
According to the indictment, as Coburn, Schwartz and others had previously agreed, they hid the bribe reimbursement payment within a series of line items in a construction change order request to be paid to the construction company, thereby concealing the true nature and purpose of the reimbursement, falsifying Cognizant's books and records, and circumventing and failing to implement its internal controls. In a statement, Cognizant said it has resolved the previously disclosed investigations by the Department of Justice and SEC into whether payments relating to permits and licenses for certain real estate facilities in India violated the U.S. FCPA.
What are the charges?
It is a crime in the US under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for a citizen to bribe foreigners, even if the payment is made abroad.
Coburn and Schwarts face 12 charges, including conspiracy, violation of the FCPA and falsifying records. s. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, monetary penalties, and officer-and-director bars against Coburn and Schwartz.
Court documents filed by the prosecution said there were three co-conspirators, who lived in India and were not being charged. They were mentioned in the court papers only as "Vice President of Administration at Cognizant", "Cognizant's Chief Operating Officer" and "Department Head for Commercial Buildings at the Construction Company".
The Department of Justice said that it was not going to prosecute Congnizant because of the company's "prompt voluntary self-disclosure", cooperation and the payment to the SEC of the cost savings from the alleged bribery.
The SEC said that of the $25 million Cognizant agreed to pay, $19 million was what it had gained by paying the alleged bribe and the interest on the amount, and the remaining $6 million was penalty.
"We have also made further enhancements to our compliance processes, procedures and resources. It is important to note that this entire matter did not involve our work with clients or affect our ability to provide the quality services our clients expect from us," he said in a statement.
The Company, it said, settled with the SEC by consenting to the entry of an administrative order. In total, the resolutions require it to pay approximately $28 million to the DOJ and SEC. "This amount is consistent with the accrual previously recorded by the company," the statement added.
Does the issue qualify for a probe in India?
A lawyer quoted by the Times of India suggests that irrespective of resolution in US courts, the issue qualifies for an India probe as it falls under the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He said the order made it evident that state officials were indeed involved. The report also quoted former Tamil Nadu DGP SK Dogra as saying that even without a complaint, the US court's ruling is sufficient for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to initiate a preliminary inquiry against state government officials. 

Cyber Criminals Are Way Ahead Of The Law Enforcement Officers: Kerala HC Asks State Police To Train Cops To Tackle Cyber Crimes

‘It is high-time for the State Police to bring out a good practise guide for digital evidence, if they intend to tackle cyber crime head on.’

The Kerala High Court has called upon the State Police to bring out a good practise guide for digital evidence to tackle cyber crimes and also to impart training to police officers to tackle the criminal misuse of current and emerging technologies.
While considering a bail plea in a cybercrime case, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. criticized an investigation officer who returned the mobile phone to son of the de-facto-complainant after transferring the data to a compact disk.
The prosecution case was that the accused raped a lady and shoot the act in a mobile phone and later forwarded the same to her son. During the arguments, the prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer had taken screenshots of certain pictures and the same was transferred to a compact disc and then the phone was then handed over back to the son of the de facto complainant as it was required for his everyday use.
Taking serious note of this submission, the court said that the phone ought to have been seized and the same should have been sent to a digital evidence specialist to retrieve the data in a scientific manner. The judge said: “I have no doubt in my mind that the manner in which the investigating officer has handled the mobile phone of the son of the de facto complainant which was a valuable piece of evidence has to be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. All that he had done was to transfer the data to a compact disc after taking a screenshot of some of the pictures. He has not even retrieved the videos which were allegedly recorded by the applicant and which were forwarded to the recipient. The investigating officer ought to have borne in mind that it was essential to display objectivity in a court of law when the case ultimately comes up for trial. The investigating officer was bound to demonstrate as to how the evidence was retrieved showing each process through which he had accomplished the said objective. In the case of digital evidence stored in a computer, mobile phone, USB drive or digital camera, he should have ensured that there is a clear link between the hardware and the digital evidence copied from that hardware. He should have maintained a record to show the chain of custody which would address issues such as the person who collected the evidence, the nature and mode as to how the evidence was collected, the name of the person who took possession of the evidence, the manner in which the evidence was stored, the protection offered to the evidence whilst in storage and the names of persons who removed the evidence from storage including the reasons.”
The Court further observed: “There is no reason why the investigating officer had failed to seize the mobile phone of the son of the victim which was the most important piece of evidence in the instant case. The hardware itself ought to have been seized and the same should have been sent to a digital evidence specialist to retrieve the data in a scientific manner. Only then, the range of digital evidence that need to be obtained including audit trials, data logs, biometric data, the metadata from applications, the file system, intrusion detection reports and the content of data bases and files could be properly retrieved. Given the nature of evidence to be copied, maintaining the evidential continuity and integrity of the evidence that is copied is of paramount importance. Such evidence will be subjected to cross-examination in relation to its integrity. In other words, the process of copying and handling such evidence should be carried out to the highest possible standards.”
The Court then explained what ought to have been done by the investigating officer in a case in which a mobile phone is used for the commission of the crime. “The first and foremost thing the officer should have done was to secure the phone to prevent the destruction/manipulation of data. He should have first recorded the status of the device after taking a photograph and record any on-screen information. If the device was switched on, it should have been switched off and the batteries should have been removed. Turning off the phone would preserve the various information, metadata and call logs and it would also prevent any attempt to wipe off the contents of the phone remotely. The officer also was bound to seize all cables, chargers, packaging, manuals etc. if possible to assist the enquiry and minimise the delays in any examination by the digital evidence specialist. The password/ pin of the device, if any, also had to be obtained from the owner of the phone. The phone had to be packed and sealed in antistatic packaging such as plastic bag, envelope or cardboard box and the secured device along with the collected data had to be sent to the digital evidence specialist. Only the said specialist can obtain and copy the digital evidence and also provide an analysis of the evidence”
The Court then added that the cybercriminals are way ahead of the law enforcement officers and urgent measures are to be taken to train officers to successfully prosecute the offender. The Court said: “It is high-time for the State Police to bring out a good practise guide for digital evidence, if they intend to tackle cyber crime head on.. Officers, who are engaged in investigation of cyber crimes, are required to be trained in best practices to tackle the criminal misuse of current and emerging technologies.”

PORTAL LAUNCHED TO FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONTENT ONLINE

PORTAL LAUNCHED TO FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONTENT ONLINE


The Centre launched a portal where citizens can file complaints about circulation of child pornography, sexually explicit materials and online sexual abuse, leading to automatic registration of FIR and action against the offenders.
PORTAL LAUNCHED TO FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONTENT ONLINE


The portal 'cybercrime.gov.in' was launched by Home Minister Rajnath Singh.This will not only help the victims and complainants but also civil society organisations and responsible citizens to anonymously report complaints pertaining to child pornography, child sexual abuse material or sexually explicit material such as rape and gang rape, Joint Secretary, Home Ministry, Madan M Oberoi said.

The cyber crime prevention against women and children (CCPWC) portal is convenient and user-friendly. It will enable complainants to report cases without disclosing their identity, he said.Complainants can also upload the objectionable content and URL to help police in the investigation.The complaints registered through this portal will be handled by police of respective states and Union Territories.

The victim or complainant can also track his or her report by opting for "report and track" option using his or her mobile number.The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) will proactively identify such objectionable content and ask the intermediaries to remove it. For this, the NCRB has already been notified as the government agency to issue notices under Section 79(3)b of the IT Act, an official statement said.

Law Firm in Chennai

Cyber crime Lawyers in Chennai

Rajendra Law office is the best law firm and legal consultants in India. We offer best Remedy for Cyber crime issues. Our Attorneys in Chennai provide best service for internet based crimes. 
Advocates for Cyber Crime in India

Advocates in India for Cyber crime 

Our Advocates provide legal services for Cyber criminal problems. Internet based crimes are common now a days. 
Visit : http://www.lawyerchennai.com/ 

Contact Number of Cyber Crime Lawyers : +91-9994287060