2G: Ambani execs seek bail, point indirect finger at boss

In a new twist, three senior executives of the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (R-ADAG) have filed bail pleas before the Supreme Court saying that they were “merely employees and not actual beneficiaries” in the alleged 2G scam.

If their bail pleas are accepted, it would imply that the true beneficiaries are their bosses - including, perhaps, group chairman Anil Ambani.

The three ADAG executives - Managing Director Gautam Doshi, and Senior Vice-Presidents Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara - filed their bail pleas last week. All three are in jail and their bail pleas will come up for hearing on 29 September.

Their new stand on bail has raised speculation about whether they are about to turn approvers for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

However, this seems unlikely since on 8 June Anil Ambani himself met two of the three executives in Tihar and assured them all help with their legal cases.

More from Politics

Is Shashi Tharoor’s breakup with Congress inevitable? ‘Naxalism will end in India by March 2026’: Amit Shah at CRPF Raising Day parade

[caption id=“attachment_87985” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Their new stand on bail has raised speculation about whether they are about to turn approvers for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Reuters”]  [/caption]

As Firstpost reported earlier, “the main accusation against the ADAG group is that it had raised its stake in Swan Telecom - one of those favoured by A Raja with spectrum - beyond 10 percent, in violation of licensing conditions for telecom which state that an existing operator (Reliance Telecom, the GSM services arm of ADAG) cannot own more than 10 percent in another telecom company.But can mere executives take a decision to invest in another telecom company without the knowledge of the owner Anil Ambani?” There is some evidence that investments in Swan could not have happened without Ambani’s nod.

On paper, Shahid Balwa, a Mumbai-based realtor, who’s also in jail, owns a clear majority in Swan (90.1 percent) through a company called Tiger Traders Pvt Ltd. Reliance Telecom, which is a subsidiary of Reliance Communications, held 9.9 percent in Swan till 2007-end.

So far, it seems like there is no breach of the telecom policy. But here’s the complication: the CBI says that Reliance Telecom had pumped over Rs 1,000 crore into Tiger Traders through many ‘bogus’ companies. And that’s why three of Anil Ambani’s top corporate honchos - Doshi, Pipara and Nair - are in the jail on charges of cheating and fraud.

In its first 2G charge-sheet, the CBI maintained that Anil Ambani’s company was the culprit, but not he personally. All the cross-holdings and money transactions between Swan and Reliance happened through ‘bogus’ companies and these transactions had the signatures of Doshi, Nair and Pipara.

But eyebrows have now been raised by the trio’s new defence, which is that they were ``merely employees and not the actual beneficiaries.’’ Does this mean they are willing to point a finger at their boss?

Anil Ambani was not brought into focus because he had not personally signed or authorised any money transactions between his companies and Swan. He maintained that he had no knowledge of his employees - Pipara, Nair and Doshi - signing off cheques for pumping money into Swan.

On 29 September, when the bail plea comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court, the CBI may not object to their bail if they actually offer help in giving details of the deals.

But, meanwhile, the Union law ministry seems to be shifting its stand in the 2G case. It has added a new interpretation to eligibility norms under section 8 of the Unified Access Service Licence (UASL) rules. This new interpretation says that the eligibility of an applicant must be determined from the date an applicant signs a licence agreement with the government and not from the date the company applies for licences.

This ’new’ interpretation of the Salman Khursheed-led Union law ministry ‘directly’ benefits Reliance’s three executives, in particular, and the Reliance ADA Group in general. The law minister’s interpretation implies that Swan may have been an ‘associate’ of Reliance before it signed a licence agreement. But it was not one when it signed the licence agreement.

The CBI, however, is undeterred, as the same law ministry had earlier submitted its opinion that Swan was an associate of Reliance Telecom. Can the law ministry offer different opinions on the same issue at different times? The CBI had submitted the ministry’s earlier opinion to the Supreme Court in the 2G case.