Thursday, May 5, 2011

the case

first, there is supposed to be a favour by a minister, a misuse of official discretion to benefit one particular company over others.

then, there is supposed to be a payback, a quid pro quo.

this is supposed to have been given to a person, on whose behalf the minister has taken up certain other issues.

that the minister took up certain issues for a person has been used to establish a connection between this person and the minister.

the linkage is that those who supposedly received the favour from the minister were the ones who made the supposed quid pro quo to the acquaintance of the minister.

even if the supposed favour is proven, the supposed receiver of the favour cannot be hauled up for having commercial transactions with some other person, on whose behalf also the minister has acted.

now, what if the supposed favour is not a reality. that is, nothing undue was done by the minister. then, what is the point of the investigation of the supposed quid pro quo.

the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet that the minister and the acquaintance conspired to give the favour, and then conspired to receive the payback.

For this, the supposed evidence is that there is a telephone recording that the acquaintance of the minister lobbied for the minister to get his position.

so if i have a dealing with someone, and that someone has a dealing with another person, then any benefit derived from the latter relationship, will be linked to me. even before the question of whether there was any benefit, and whether there was any undue aspect to it, has been proven, i will also be questioned as i have made some monetary transaction with the third person.

No comments: