THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 22, BELOW--
INSTEAD OF REWARDING “ JOHN DOE” , THE JEW ROTHSCHILDs SLIMY APPARATUS REWARDED “WHITE HELMETS” ( NOBEL PRIZE NOMINATION / OSCAR AWARD ) WHO DID ORGAN HARVESTING AND FALSE FLAG EMBEDDED COVERAGE IN SYRIA , FOR ZIONIST JEWS .
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL REWARDS JOHN DOE , WITH A “VADAKAYIL PRIZE” .. THANK YOU – PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ORNAMENTS OF THIS PLANET .
John Doe is the pseudonym used by the whistleblower in the 2016 Panama Papers leak, who turned over 11.5 million documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca to the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
On May 5, 2016, John Doe published a statement The Revolution Will Be Digitised; Doe explained he made the files from Mossack Fonseca public to underline growing income inequality and financial corruption globally.
The whistleblower has offered to help prosecutors build their cases, on condition of legal protection.
In 2014, a man contacted Bastian Obermayer, a reporter working for German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung with the message "Hello. My name is John Doe. Interested in data?"
When Obermayer answered in the affirmative, Doe continued, saying, "My life is in danger. No meeting, ever. I want you to report on the material and to make these crimes public."
Doe then proceeded to transfer roughly 11.5 million documents from the records of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.. John Doe issued a statement on May 5, 2016 explaining what motivated him to release the massive trove of files from inside Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
In this text, titled The Revolution Will Be Digitized, John Doe said growing global income inequality and corruption allegedly enabled by Mossack Fonseca motivated his actions.
Doe also said the papers demonstrated the injustices perpetrated by the industry that creates offshore companies and blamed governments for allowing offshore havens to proliferate, saying he leaked the documents "simply because I understood enough about their contents to realise the scale of the injustices they described."
He added that he had never worked for any government or intelligence agency and expressed willingness to help prosecutors. After SZ verified that it was from the Panama Papers source, ICIJ posted the full written statement on its website
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act in the Parliament of India which provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants and also protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies, projects and offices.
The wrongdoing might take the form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement. The Act will also ensure punishment for false or frivolous complaints.
The Act was approved by the Cabinet of India as part of a drive to eliminate corruption in the country's bureaucracy and passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011. The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and received the President's assent on 9 May 2014.
The Act seeks to protect whistle blowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offense by a public servant.
Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organization may make such a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission.
Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant.
The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Act penalizes any person who has disclosed the identity of the complainant.
The Act prescribes penalties for knowingly making false complaints.
There have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistleblowers. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the whistle in a corruption case in the National Highways Authority of India’s Golden Quadrilateral project.
Two years later, an Indian Oil Corporation officer, Shanmughan Manjunath, was murdered for sealing a petrol pump that was selling adulterated fuel.
A Karnataka official SP Mahantesh, said to be a whistle-blower in controversial land allotments by societies was murdered in May 2012. Mahantesh was working as Deputy Director of the audit wing in the state’s Cooperative department and had reported irregularities in different societies involving some officials and political figures. A senior police officer alleged that Mayawati's government was corrupt and had embezzled large amounts of money. Shortly thereafter, he was sent to a psychiatric hospital.
The activists demanded that a law should be framed to protect the whistleblowers, to facilitate the disclosure of information and uncover corruption in government organisations.
In March 2011, the Supreme Court refused to frame guidelines for protection of whistle blowers in the country, saying that it cannot make law. However, the court allowed the petitioners to approach the high court for protection of whistleblowers in a specific case.
In August 2013, a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Arjan Kumar Sikri ruled that identity of whistleblower can never be revealed to the accused facing prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
the bill has faced considerable criticism because its jurisdiction is restricted to the government sector and encompasses only those who are working for the Government of India or its agencies; it does not cover the state-government employees. However, the draft bill aimed at protecting whistleblowers is seen as a welcome move.
The lack of public debate and consultation on the bill seems to indicate the danger of it becoming another "paper tiger". Typically, ministries proposing draft legislation involve a process of public consultation to give the public an opportunity to carefully critique its provisions. In this case, such an opportunity has been denied to the public, which has not gone unnoticed.
The proposed law has neither provisions to encourage whistleblowing (financial incentives), nor deals with corporate whistleblowers; it does not extend its jurisdiction to the private sector (a strange omission, after the fraud at Satyam). The Directorate of Income Tax Intelligence and Criminal Investigation is one of the only agencies empowered for whistle blower protection.
The bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from harassment with protecting persons making a public-interest disclosure. It outlines sanctions for false complaints. However, it does not provide a penalty for attacking a complainant.
The bill has a limited definition of disclosure, and does not define victimisation. Other countries (such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada) define disclosure more widely and define victimization
The Whistle blower Bill received the President's assent on 9 May 2014.
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was designated in 2004 to receive public-interest disclosures through government resolution
The Central Vigilance Commission plans to create more awareness about corruption in India. To encourage the fight against corruption, CVC has provided on their website, a "Lodge Complaints Online" portal. The earlier publicized portal Blow your whistle is no longer functional.
The Central Vigilance Commission is not an investigating agency. The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners is appointed by the President on recommendation of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs (Member) and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People (Member)
CVC is only an advisory body. Central Government Departments are free to either accept or reject CVC's advice in corruption cases.
CVC does not have adequate resources compared with number of complaints that it receives. It is a very small set up with a sanctioned staff strength of 299. Whereas, it is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500 central government departments and ministries.
CVC cannot direct CBI to initiate inquiries against any officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above on its own. Such a permission has to be obtained from the concerned department.
CVC does not have powers to register criminal case. It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary cases.
CVC has supervisory powers over CBI. However, CVC does not have the power to call for any file from CBI or to direct CBI to investigate any case in a particular manner. CBI is under administrative control of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Which means that, the powers to appoint, transfer, suspend CBI officers lie with DoPT.
Appointments to CVC are indirectly under the control of Govt of India, though the leader of the Opposition (in Lok Sabha) is a member of the Committee to select CVC and VCs. But the Committee considers candidates put up before it. These candidates are decided by the Government.
As a result, although CVC is relatively independent in its functioning, it has neither resources nor powers to inquire and take action on complaints of corruption that may act as an effective deterrence against corruption.
The following initiatives have been taken by CVC:- 1. National Anticorruption Strategy 2. Leveraging Technology to Prevent Corruption 3. Integrity in Public procurement 4. Awareness Campaign 5. Provision for Whistle Blowers 6. Improving the Standard of Vigilance Work 7. Computerisation of Commission’s Work 8. Modern Preventive Vigilance Framework 9. International Cooperation. etc.
Chanakya ruled “Any informant (súchaka) who supplies information about embezzlement just under perpetration shall, if he succeeds in proving it, get as reward one-sixth of the amount in question; if he happens to be a government servant (bhritaka), he shall get for the same act one-twelfth of the amount.”
THE INDIAN GOVT MUST BRAINSTORM AND TAKE SUGGESTIONS FROM COMPETENT SOULS ON AMENDING THE WHITE BLOWER ACT
Seminars should be conducted in Government organizations as well as Private Organizations to inform employees and employers of the importance of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. The modes of making disclosures have to be explained to the employees.
The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 should be amended so as to include protection to private enterprises. A model Whistleblowers Policy could be framed by a special committee constituted under the Whistleblower Protection Rules .
The Whistleblowers policy would then be compulsorily established and followed in Private enterprises keeping the skeleton of the Model formulated under the Whistleblowers Protection Rules but supplementing it with each companies own rules and regulation as the circumstances differ in each and every company.
VICTIMISATION rules must be a chapter in the Indian context
One of the largest barriers in today's organizations against whistle blowing is retaliation against the disclosure. Retaliation can vary from minor harassment in certain cases to the extremity of costing one's life. In a typical case, the employee who blows the whistle would be put under pressure to rescind his words and refrain from further disclosures.
Some of the common practices of retaliation are :--
Marginalise the employee by taking away the job duties.
Blacklist the employee so that he can't gain further employment.
Conduct retaliatory investigations in order to divert attention from the matter and abuse the whistleblower.
Question whistle blowers professional competence, honesty and mental health.
Reassign the employee so that he/she is unable to do the job
At times, retaliation becomes extreme as Satyendra Dubey was murdered after he revealed corruption on a road project.
Another glaring example of the apathy faced by the whistle blowers in India is that of the Indian Oil engineer Shanmugam Manjunath. Manjunath was a marketing manager for the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) who was murdered for blewing the whistle on a scheme to sell impure gasoline.
An MBA from Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Manjunath worked for IOC in Lucknow. While there, he had ordered two petrol pumps at Lakhimpur Kheri to be sealed for selling adulterated fuel for three months. On November 19, 2005, Manjunath was found dead in the backseat of his own car, his body riddled with at least six bullets.
NOW THE AMERICAN CONTEXT —FOR THE INDIAN GOVT TO GLEAN
US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words such as "informers" and "snitches" and “sneaks” and “chuglis “
Types Of Whistleblowers
Internal: When the whistleblower reports the wrong doings to the officials at higher position in the organization. The usual subjects of internal whistleblowing are disloyality , improper conduct, indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience etc.
External: Where the wrongdoings are reported to the people outside the organization like media, public interest groups or enforcement agencies it is called external whistleblowing.
Alumini: When the whistleblowing is done by the former employee of the organization it is called alumini whistle blowing.
Open: When the identity of the whistleblower is revealed, it is called Open Whistle Blowing.
Personal: Where the organizational wrongdoings are to harm one person only, disclosing such wrong doings it is called personal whistle blowing.
Impersonal: When the wrong doing is to harm others, it is called impersonal whistle blowing.
Government: When a disclosure is made about wrong doings or unethical practices adopted by the officials of the Government.
Corporate: When a disclosure is made about the wrongdoings in a business corporation, it is called corporate whistle blowing.
The OECD also commented upon the fact that many countries prohibit anonymous reporting, which is a staple of the SEC Whistleblower program. These parties were skeptical about anonymous whistleblowers, assuming they might be filing unreliable or vindictive allegations, and might attract "cranks, timewasters and the querulants."
On the other side were countries that support anonymous whistleblowing, especially where it is culturally unsuitable to be a whistleblower, or where "the institutional safeguards are non-existent of too weak to provide adequate protection, anonymous whistleblowing is essential to the success of any whistleblower program if whistleblowers are forced to identify themselves, even if promised confidentiality most will be unwilling to run the risk.
The OECD did come out strongly in support of strict "confidentiality" for whistleblowers,. "Being certain that the information provided remains confidential, along with one's identity, is an essential factor in disclosing wrongdoing. Maintaining confidentiality is the first element of a whistleblower protection system, when this fails, reprisals may ensue
The SEC whistleblower rules are complex, and lengthy.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program went into effect on July 21, 2010, when the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
To be considered for an award, the SEC’s rules require that a whistleblower must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to the successful enforcement by the SEC of a federal court or administrative action in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million.
To be considered for an award, the final rules require that a whistleblower must:--
Voluntarily provide the SEC …
In general, a whistleblower is deemed to have provided information voluntarily if the whistleblower has provided information before the government, a self-regulatory organization or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board asks for it directly from the whistleblower or the whistleblower’s representative.
… with original information …
Original information must be based upon the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or independent analysis, not already known to the Commission and not derived exclusively from certain public sources.
… that leads to the successful enforcement by the SEC of a federal court or administrative action …
A whistleblower’s information can be deemed to have led to a successful enforcement action if:
The information is sufficiently specific, credible and timely to cause the Commission to open a new examination or investigation, reopen a closed investigation, or open a new line inquiry in an existing examination or investigation.
The conduct was already under investigation when the information was submitted, and the information significantly contributed to the success of the action.
The whistleblower reports original information through his or her employer’s internal whistleblower, legal, or compliance procedures before or at the same time it is passed along to the Commission; the employer provides the whistleblower’s information (and any subsequently-discovered information) to the Commission;
… in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million.
The rules permit aggregation of multiple Commission cases that arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts as a single action. These may include proceedings involving the same or similar parties, factual allegations, alleged violations of the federal securities laws, or transactions or occurrences.
Avoiding Unintended Consequences:--
Certain people generally will not be considered for whistleblower awards under the final rules.
People who have a pre-existing legal or contractual duty to report their information to the Commission.
Attorneys (including in-house counsel) who attempt to use information obtained from client engagements to make whistleblower claims for themselves (unless disclosure of the information is permitted under SEC rules or state bar rules).
People who obtain the information by means or in a manner that is determined by a U.S. court to violate federal or state criminal law.
Foreign government officials.
Officers, directors, trustees or partners of an entity who are informed by another person (such as by an employee) of allegations of misconduct, or who learn the information in connection with the entity’s processes for identifying, reporting and addressing possible violations of law (such as through the company hotline).
Compliance and internal audit personnel.
Public accountants working on SEC engagements, if the information relates to violations by the engagement client.
However, in certain circumstances, compliance and internal audit personnel as well as public accountants could become whistleblowers when:
The whistleblower believes disclosure may prevent substantial injury to the financial interest or property of the entity or investors.
The whistleblower believes that the entity is engaging in conduct that will impede an investigation.
At least 120 days have elapsed since the whistleblower reported the information to his or her supervisor or the entity’s audit committee, chief legal officer, chief compliance officer – or at least 120 days have elapsed since the whistleblower received the information, if the whistleblower received it under circumstances indicating that these people are already aware of the information.
Certain other people – such as employees of certain agencies and people who are criminally convicted in connection with the conduct – are already excluded by Dodd-Frank.
Under the final rules, the Commission also will not pay culpable whistleblowers awards that are based upon either:
The monetary sanctions that such culpable individuals themselves pay in the resulting SEC action.
The monetary sanctions paid by entities whose liability is based substantially on conduct that the whistleblower directed, planned or initiated.
The purpose of this provision is to prevent wrongdoers from benefitting by, in effect, blowing the whistle on themselves.
The Dodd Frank Act's whistleblower provisions make it possible for an individual with "original information" regarding violations of the securities laws to submit it to the SEC and receive up to 30% of the monetary penalties in the event the SEC or certain other government enforcement agencies bring a successful case based on that information and the penalties exceed one million dollars.
Unfortunately, the regulations the SEC issued governing the whistleblower program are dense, virtually incomprehensible to non-lawyers, and full of legal traps to gaining an award.
Being a whistleblower can be a lonely, long and winding road. Life can become very difficult for a whistleblower, even a successful one.
The SEC whistleblower office indicated that it will treat retaliation cases as a top priority.
Maybe you are aware of accounting fraud at your company, maybe insider trading, maybe the payoff of a foreign official. You want to tell the SEC. Is it as simple as picking up the phone and dialing the main number in Washington? Unfortunately not. First, you have to have "original information."
"Original information" to be that "derived from your independent knowledge (facts known to you that are not derived from publicly available sources) or independent analysis (information that may be publicly available but which reveals information that is not generally known) that is not already known by [the SEC]."
You don't have to be an insider—you can be a customer, an outside advisor, or someone who hears about something secondhand
As long as your tip is "not exclusively derived" from public sources , you can still qualify.
Once you have reported internally, submit your information to the SEC, either yourself or through your counsel. Give the SEC what you gave the company. You have only 120 days from the time you report to the company to take that information to the SEC, in order to insure you get credit as the original source (as of the first day you reported it internally) if the company decides to report it to the SEC as well, or if someone else reports it to the SEC before you do.
Make Your Submission Short and to the Point; Consider Carefully which Documents To Include
Your submission should get to the point quickly, and be specific without overwhelming the staff with details, which can be added later if they decide to follow-up on the matter.
You can tell of a bribe to a foreign official in a paragraph ("My company has been paying off the Minister of Finance of Guatador by sending cash to his sister"). You can describe a complex accounting fraud in a page or so (Don't send them a box full of random emails and spreadsheets and expect them to sort it out -Be specific and succinct.
If you simply have suspicions but no direct proof, tell them that too. Don't hype, puff, or over-promise. Tell them about yourself, your position and background, how you came about the information, and why you believe it to be true. If you have reported internally describe that in some detail, and what if anything happened to you afterward.
In selecting documents to submit, be aware that you may be violating company policies against disclosing confidential or proprietary information.
This risk is pretty much part of the life of a whistleblower. if you have documents which are highly sensitive, and might involve serious breaches of the law on your part to disclose (e.g. "national security" matters), it may be best to hold them back until you are certain the SEC is interested in your submission, and then discuss with the staff how to handle such information.
Good information that leads to a major case can still result in no award if the whistleblower is not eligible, for any of a multitude of reasons. One particularly tricky set of rules deals with who is disqualified by law from being a whistleblower for being what the SEC considers a "core person" relating to internal compliance mechanisms.
If You Had Any Involvement in the Illegal Activity, Consult An Attorney Before Making Any Approach to the SEC consult an attorney before making your whistleblower submission.
Formulate Your Submission, and cooperate with the SEC, with an Eye to Getting the Maximum Award After the Case is Brought.
Consider Hiring A Lawyer to Assist You In Reporting to the SEC
Indeed, if the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous, he or she has to report through counsel.
A whistleblower claim made in good faith, which reveals the truth, should in a perfect world succeed and reward the person who took the chance to do the right thing. But we must recall the old adage "No good deed goes unpunished."
In the world we live in, the whistleblower, to succeed, must follow the SEC's complicated procedures and make a persuasive case for what could become a successful SEC enforcement action. The reward money is there, almost half-a-billion set aside for awards.
The largest award yet given to an SEC whistleblower, $30 million, went to a foreign-based whistleblower.
As for the French, they have just enacted a new law on "transparency, anti-corruption and economic modernization" the so-called Sapin II bill. It obligates French companies having 500 or more employees and revenue exceeding 100 million Euros to implement anti-corruption compliance programs consisting of 8 concrete measures, including codes of conduct, internal alert systems, and due diligence and risk assessment procedures. It also introduces a French-style deferred prosecution agreement.
It strengthens whistleblower protections and sets forth a structured procedure for whistleblowers to raise claims and to protect against retaliation, including financial compensation in the event of litigation. The law makes it a crime (two years' prison and a 30,000 Euro fine) to retaliate against a whistleblower, violate the whistleblower's confidentiality, and interfere with a "public interest" disclosure (something the US should seriously consider).
International corruption has reached dangerous levels, and law enforcement is only scratching the surface with the prosecutions undertaken and reported to date.
Reports or disclosures are often made anonymously in the hope that the source will be protected. However, anonymity raises a host of issues.
More often than not, anonymous allegations are assumed to be malicious or are considered to be less credible by those who receive them. Anonymous disclosures can also be much more difficult to investigate and even impossible to remedy.
Finally, anonymity is not a guarantee that the source of the information will not be unmasked. Where the person is identified, the fact that they acted anonymously can be seen as a sign of bad faith, further jeopardizing their position.
Many countries also have penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers. Anonymous disclosures show a lack of trust in the whistleblower protection system and an organisation’s integrity the possibility to disclose anonymously may encourage reporting, especially where it is culturally unsuitable to be a whistleblower, or where the institutional safeguards are non-existent or too weak to provide adequate protection
Whistleblower reporting mechanisms must be accompanied by effective whistleblower protection policies Whistleblower protection is the ultimate line of defence for safeguarding the public interest. Protecting whistleblowers promotes a culture of accountability and integrity in both public and private institutions, and encourages the reporting of misconduct, fraud and corruption.
Whistleblowers (organisational insiders who disclose wrongdoing in or by their organisation, in order to trigger action) play a key role in exposing otherwise unknown acts of corruption.
Frequently, when corruption or wrongdoing emerges, it becomes clear that organisations, law enforcement and other regulators could have acted earlier to prevent or deal with it – if people with relevant knowledge had spoken up, to the right people or in the right way, or been listened to when they tried to raise their concerns.
The anonymous whistle-blower who leaked millions of Panamanian legal documents related to secret shell companies offered to help authorities investigate and prosecute criminal cases that might arise from them in exchange for immunity.
PUT BELOW COMMENT IN CJIs, SWAMYs, YOGI ADITYANATHs, LAW MINISTERs, ATTORNEY GENERALs, PM MODIs, RAJNATH SINGHs WEBSITES ..
ALSO SPREAD ON SOCIAL MEDIA
BABRI MASJID WAS A SHIA MOSQUE TILL 1947….
TODAY WHY ARE SUNNIS JUMPING UP AND DOWN ? ………..
SHIA MUSLIM Mir Baqi Tashqandi, the governor of Awadh was the first human to worship at Babri mosque in 1528, after the Ram temple was razed down…..
Before the 1940s, it was called Masjid-i-Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace"), including in the official documents such as revenue records……
The Shias disputed the Sunni ownership of the mosque, claiming that the site belonged to them because Mir Baqi was a Shia….
Babur was a SHIA…
Sunnis did not offer the namaz-e-janaza for the Mughal emperor …..
Shah Jehan was a SHIA and was buried with SHIA rites as per the British records….
Queen Mumtaz Mahal was a SHIA…
There are signs of palm on the minarets of the Taj Mahal, which was similar to the sign of palm used by Shias on the alams during the alam processions in Moharrum mournings…….……..
MUSLIMS BOTH SHIAS AND SUNNIS , NEVER DID NAMAAZ FOR CENTURIES AT BABRI --AFTER THEY FOUND A VARAHA ( PIG ) IDOL….... …
WARNING - -AYODHYA BABRI-- WARNING……
HINDUS WILL NOT ACCEPT "JUSTICE IS BLIND" NONSENSE FROM COLLEGIUM JUDGES ANYMORE…..
WE ASK FOR NATURAL JUSTICE..WITHIN PERIMETER OF CONTEXT….. ... …
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MUSLIMS WILL NOT BE LARGE HEARTED WHEN IT COMES TO MECCA OF HINDUS…….
KOREANS ACCEPT AYODHYA AND RAM MANDIR, BUT INDIAN COMMIES / ATHEISTS RIDICULE HINDU HISTORY………
READ BELOW BLOGPOSTS BELOW CAREFULLY BEFORE RULING ON THE BABRI MASJID CASE ....
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL
THIS POST IS NOW CONTINUED TO PART 24, BELOW--
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL