Who is responsible for corruption in india

An authority has been set up at the central and state levels to monitor complaints from citizens under the RTI Act including a refusal of access or a failure to respond. Such authorities are the Chief Information Commissioner at the central level and the state-specific information commissioners at the relevant state levels. The RTI Act was amended in October to allow the central government to formulate rules and regulations governing the tenure, salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the information commissioners, which had been fixed under the RTI Act prior to such amendment.

In recent years, the RTI Act has proved to be a key tool in the fight against corruption — requests for information by activists and citizens have been successful in bringing to light instances of corruption in government tenders and public procurement programmes. The CVC is the government watchdog that is tasked with inquiring into or commissioning an inquiry into offences alleged to have been committed under the PCA.

It is also responsible for advising, planning, executing, reviewing and reforming vigilance operations in central government organisations. These bodies have been empowered to investigate allegations of corruption against public functionaries, including offences under the PCA including allegations against the prime minister and other central ministers, members of parliament and other public servants.

Further, public servants are required to declare the assets held by them together with their spouse and dependent children on an annual basis. Under the Companies Act, auditors and cost accountants are mandatorily required to report any suspected frauds above a specified threshold to the central government. Certain types of companies are also mandated to establish a vigilance mechanism for the reporting of concerns.

The Companies Act also obligates directors and senior management to maintain systems for ensuring compliance with applicable law, as well as accuracy of the books, records and financial statements of the company. Contravention of such provisions is punishable with fines which depend upon the quantum of the amount involved in the fraud and imprisonment. The SFIO has broad powers to conduct inspections, discover documents, search and seize evidence, etc.

As per the SFIO website, the agency has filed 1, prosecution cases in various courts and designated forums — of which, it had obtained conviction in 92 cases as of March The NFRA has also been vested with powers of investigation into matters of professional or other misconduct committed by any member or firm of chartered accountants registered under the Chartered Accountants Act, A crucial aspect of this law is that it permits the attachment of properties of accused persons and other parties who are connected with the proceeds of crime at a preliminary stage of the investigation and even prior to conviction.

The offence of money laundering attracts a punishment of imprisonment of three to seven years, and a fine. Further, the prerequisite of a first information report or charge sheet being filed in relation to a scheduled offence under the PMLA, prior to the Enforcement Directorate being competent to investigate the offence of money laundering resulting from such scheduled offence, has been removed.

This enactment levies penal rates of tax on any undisclosed asset or income held abroad by a person resident in India and penalises individuals for non-disclosure of foreign income or assets, wilful attempt to evade tax, failure to furnish requisite returns, etc. The FEOA targets fugitive economic offenders against whom an arrest warrant has been issued for certain predicate economic offences involving INR crores and who have either left the country to avoid criminal prosecution or are abroad and refuse to return to face criminal prosecution.

The strength of the FEOA lies in its far-reaching measure of immediate confiscation of all properties of any abscondee, which acts as a strong deterrent against any desertion from the country. The past few years have witnessed a stark change in the approach towards enforcement of anti-corruption laws. One of the driving forces behind this change has been the increased public focus on the issue of corruption in government, combined with an active role played by the judiciary in corruption matters.

This movement against corruption was triggered by the discovery of several instances of large-scale corruption by highly influential ministers and bureaucrats within the government machinery. Recently, instances of financial fraud by established corporate giants and multi-millionaire businessmen have also come to light. This led to a large-scale public outcry regarding the impact of corruption on the Indian economy and its citizens.

Amidst growing public dissatisfaction regarding this state of affairs, the government reacted by enacting various legislative measures. Further, alarmed by the increasing number of financial defaulters absconding the jurisdiction of domestic law enforcement agencies to avoid prosecution, the government enacted the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, On account of an increasing number of delinquent borrowers and non-performing assets, anti-corruption enforcement has recently directed its focus towards corruption in the financial services sector, particularly in the approval of large loans.

In an effort to bridge the information asymmetry in the loan market and to shield the credit environment from further shocks, the Reserve Bank of India has begun work in setting up a digital Public Credit Registry. The registry aims to allow banks and financial institutions to have a complete view of the financial profiles of existing and prospective borrowers.

Law enforcement agencies have initiated proceedings against various corporate giants and multi-millionaire businessmen for defrauding public and private sector banks. Another growing trend is that enforcement agencies have become more sophisticated in unravelling complex corporate or financial structures, and have increased their reliance on technological tools.

Importantly, government agencies have also shown a willingness to take the assistance of specialists such as private forensic auditors or investigators to help them in this endeavour and provide expertise that they may lack themselves. Indian enforcement agencies have also strengthened their relationships with agencies from other jurisdictions, and we have witnessed far more cooperation and coordination in cross-border enforcement efforts.

Perhaps the most welcome change has been an increased appetite among enforcement agencies to aggressively investigate and pursue corruption cases, even against high-profile politicians and powerful bureaucrats. Additionally, enforcement agencies have initiated proceedings against statutory auditors of entities who have been subject to financial fraud.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the NFRA have been at the forefront of prosecuting audit firms who, while being appointed as statutory auditors of companies in India, have allegedly colluded with the management in perpetrating fraud upon the entity, its shareholders, banks and the public at large. It is interesting to note that, as regards the PMLA, the offence of fraud under the Companies Act was introduced as a scheduled offence on April 18, Pursuant to Article 20 of the Constitution of India, any finding of fraud prior to such period should not trigger the provisions of the PMLA, since Article 20 of the Constitution of India expressly states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence; neither shall they be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

This has also been clarified by a recently inserted illustration in the statute which states that if a public servant demands money to process a routine application on time, the same would be an offence under the PCA.

Vital resources such as water and food are available at very high prices and access to basic needs like education and health care is made difficult or even impossible, in some cases. Matters are made worse by the fact that the corrupted judiciary turns a blind eye to the rule of law. Although corruption is a worldwide threat, there is a difference in levels corruption between rich and poor nations.

Especially vulnerable to corruption are crisis-ridden countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Iraq tie as well as countries rich in resources like Cameroon.

The five most corrupt countries: 1. Somalia 2. Afghanistan 3. Myanmar 4. Sudan 5. Iraq tie The five least corrupt countries: 1. New Zealand 2. Denmark 3. Singapore 4. Sweden tie 5. Switzerland Corruption is widespread in India and has become a big threat in the last years.

According to a study of Transparency International India and the Centre for Media Study CMS from , between November Januar Indian households paid on average 8, million Rupees million US Dollars as bribes for basic civic facilities such as water, education and healthcare. Corruption is caused by multiples factors and the corruption conducted by high-ranking politicians and officials in economically weak countries has an international dimension.

Bribes often come from multinational companies situated in the richest countries in the world. For example, Siemens has been accused of having paid 10 million euro as bribes to Nigerian cabinet members in the years According to TI, Nigeria belongs to the 35 most corrupt nations in the world. Earth's earliest landmass got formed in Jharkhand's Singhbhum region, finds study. Vehicular emissions biggest contributor to pollution levels in Delhi: Analysis. Biden administration settles for automatic job authorisation for spouses of H-1B visa holders.

Switch to Hindi Edition. Companies, Stock Quotes.