New Delhi: A recent Parliament reply disclosed that scheduled commercial banks have written off loans worth about Rs 10 lakh crore in the last five financial years.

According to a reply by the Finance Ministry, during 2021-22, the write-off amount came down to Rs 1,57,096 crore compared to Rs 2,02,781 crore in 2020-21.

As per the written reply by Minister of State for Finance, Bhagwat K. Karad in Rajya Sabha, during 2019-20, the write-off was worth Rs 2,34,170 crore, down from Rs 2,36,265 crore, the highest in five years recorded in 2018-19. During 2017-18, the write-off by banks stood at Rs 1,61,328 crore.

In all, bank loans to the tune of Rs 9,91,640 crore have been written off in the last five years — 2017-18 to 2021-22.

He also said that “scheduled commercial banks (SCBs) and all Indian financial institutions report certain credit information of all borrowers having aggregate credit exposure of Rs 5 crore and above to RBI under its Central Repository of Information on Large Credits database.

As per the data, the highest number of 2,840 wilful defaulters reported during 2020-21 was followed by 2,700 in 2021-22. The number of wilful defaulters stood at 2,207 at the end of March 2019 that rose to 2,469 in 2019-20.

Gitanjali Gems topped the list of 25 wilful defaulters followed by Era Infra Engineering, Concast Steel and Power, REI Agro Ltd and ABG Shipyard Ltd.

Similarly, Mehul Choksi’s company Gitanjali Gems owes banks a whopping Rs 7,110 crore while Era Infra Engineering owes Rs 5,879 crore and Concast Steel and Power Ltd Rs 4,107 crore.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Banks write off about Rs 10 lakh crore in last five financial years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Economic Times reported that soon banks might add a new column in their Know Your Customer (KYC) forms for depositors and clients to mention their religion. The report says that the requirement could be on account of changes to FEMA regulations that extend the benefits of opening NRO accounts to non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

According to the RBI’s website “A Citizen of Bangladesh/Pakistan belonging to minority communities in those countries i.e. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians residing in India and who has been granted LTV or whose application for LTV is under consideration, can open only one NRO account with an AD bank subject to the conditions mentioned in Notification No. FEMA 5(R)/2016-RB dated April 01, 2016, as updated from time to time.” The entire notification may be read here.

Interestingly, this provision, and in fact the entire notification does not mention refugees from Afghanistan.

But this begs the question that if NRO accounts can be opened by these people how will the bank determine the religion of the applicant? Will it rely on surnames? Will banks leave such a major decision to mere speculation? Will it require people to disclose their religion? Will banks compel applicants to disclose religion? Is it being presumed that people seeking refuge due to religious persecution will be open to disclosing their religion? This is still a gray area.

Sabrang India had reported recently about how the RBI that controls the currency, banking system and monetary policy, issued Notification No. FEMA 21(R)/2018-RB on March 26, 2018 under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2018. Point 7 of this notification permitted non-Muslim minorities from the three countries mentioned in the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) to purchase property in India.

Related:

Did RBI help set the stage for CAA?

The post Will banks require religion disclosure in KYC process? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Anti-merger demonstration by bank employees

Pointing out that the “reforms” ranged from the repugnantly pro-corporate relaxations for tax evaders to the “ridiculous” suggestion to government departments to buy new vehicles to boost the automobile sector”, in a statement public public by the Financial Accountability Network (FAN) — India, they have said, this is nothing but an attempt to “decimate PSBs in a single stroke.”

Signed by Ashok Choudhury, All India Union of Forest Working People; Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, Chennai; D Thomas Franco, former General Secretary, All India Bank Officers’ Confederation; Dr Sunilam, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti; Gautam Mody, New Trade Union Initiative; Leo Saldanha, Environments Support Group; Madhuresh Kumar, National Alliance Peoples’ Movements; Nishank, Delhi Solidarity Group and others, the statement demands withdrawal of the merger decision and “genuine” steps to recover bad loans.

Text:

We the undersigned organisations and individuals condemn the Government’s decision to merge 10 Public Sector Banks (PSBs) and demand immediate withdrawal of the mergers; stop privatisation of the PSBs; take genuine actions to recover bad loans; make wilful default a criminal offence; and draft environmental and social safeguard policies for lenders.

Nirmala Sitharaman, the Union Minister of Finance, in her press conference last Friday stated that the merger will not result in employee retrenchment; quoting the example of the merger of Dena Bank, Vijaya Bank and Bank of Baroda.

What the minister ignored was that, as per the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance’s 2018 Report, by 2020, 95% of GMs, 75 % DGMs and 58% of AGMs would be retiring. The government is yet to take any concrete steps to address the impending major human resource crisis. This is neither mentioned nor redressed in the new announcements. Instead, mergers will only overburden the already understaffed banks.

Another inevitable fallout of mergers is the closing down of bank branches, ATMs and other banking services. But the minister cared not for the plight of the common people but easing lending for the corporates.
 

Similarly, in FY17-18, the write-offs by PSBs amounted to Rs 1.25 lakh crore; and between 2014 and 2018 write-offs alone amount to Rs 5,55,603 crore, according to RBI data. It is a colossal waste of public money and the resources of the banks. Hence the government’s intention is not in recovering the NPAs and strengthening the PSBs but to clear their books of the bad loans in time to ease privatisation.

Privatising banks has been a quarter-decade-old project of the state. The Narasimham Committee in the 1990s paved way for foreign and private banks in the sector, reducing the number of banking officers through the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. But it could not achieve its dream of reducing the government shares to 33 per cent or the phasing out of priority sector lending.

But, almost every successive committee and their recommendations prepare the sector for a market take over. In fact, most of the announcements by the Minister have already been recommended by the PJ Nayak Committee (2014) like the mergers and strengthening the Board. The other major recommendation was to reduce the government shares to less than 50 per cent. Unless we unite to fight, that will soon become the reality.

Sitharaman’s first press conference laid down a slew of waivers for the “wealth creators” in the name of ‘reforms’. The reforms ranged from the repugnantly pro-corporate relaxations for tax evaders to the ridiculous suggestion to government departments to buy new vehicles to boost the automobile sector. The second press conference attempts to decimate PSBs in a single stroke.

This government’s contempt for the public sector is no surprise. When the Prime Minister’s stated position is that Public Sector Units deserve to die, this is only expected. In recent times we have seen the systemic destruction of many public sector institutions and now the attack is on the PSBs. What we need is greater accountability and transparency of banks from top to bottom. The progressive and democratic forces have to oppose this blatant destruction of PSB in the name of mergers.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Banks merger ‘reflects’ Modi’s pro-corporate slant: Public sector units deserve to die appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
In landmark judgment, Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, AIR 2016 SC 1= (2016) 3 SCC 525, the main issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether all the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be denied by the RBI and “other Banks” to the public at large on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship (of RBI with other Banks), on the one hand, and the public interest, on the other. Rejecting all the three arguments, the Apex Court held that the RBI & other banks, as public authorities under the Act, were bound to disclose the information related to inspection reports and other documents to the applicants. 
 
The argument that disclosure would hurt the economic interests of the country is “baseless, unsubstantiated & totally misconceived”, the Court responded at para 61 of the judgment. There was no commercial confidence & fiduciary relation between RBI & other banks and that the relationship was purely statutory in nature, the Court said at paras 58-60, 62. The Apex Court discussed at length the legislative history of the RTI Act, 2005, its preamble, objectives & briefly it mentioned of structure of its provisions. It quoted the then PM of India’s speech in Parliament on the Act.
 
The RBI & other banks were, thus, directed to disclose the information to the respondents/citizens in the interests of the general public. It appears from latest developments that the RBI did not disclose the required information of annual inspection reports of banks, along with the list of willful defaulters, which was sought by the applicants under the RTI Act. Non-disclosure from RBI came under its “Disclosure Policy” 30.11.2016 that made certain information exempt from disclosure under the Act. The Apex Court vide its latest order 26-04-2019 took RBI’s non-compliance with its order dated 16-12-2015 passed in Jayantilal N. Mistry ante very seriously. So, the Court directed the RBI to withdraw its “Disclosure Policy” dated 30.11.2016 & divulge the information otherwise face the contempt proceedings.
 
The Court vide its order dated 26-04-2019 passed in Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram , (2019) Supreme (SC) 498 reiterated its earlier opinion that while information under section 8(1) of the Act can be denied to the public to guard national security, sovereignty, national economic interest and relations with foreign States etc, the lower-level economic and financial information like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption.

The Court observed that RBI had vide its Disclosure Policy dated 30.11.2016 directed various departments not to disclose information that was directed to be given by Jayantilal N. Mistry ante & that “though we could have taken a serious view of the Respondents [RBI & other banks] continuing to violate the directions issued by this Court, we give them a last opportunity to withdraw the disclosure policy… Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court”. (paras 8-10, emphasis added). It is ultimatum given to the RBI by the Apex Court for non-compliance with its order in Jayantilal N. Mistry ante.  RBI has said it will disclose the information pursuant to the top court’s hammer, as reported by dailyhunt on 27-04-2019.

Above is the law as on date regarding banking industry in the country. Let us throw some polemic light on the issue of what constitutes a “public authority” under the Act that is duty bound to disclose information to the citizens, in the light of judicial dicta. To start with, right to information emanates from the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which does not, however, explicitly grant this right inasmuch as right of privy is also not expressly mentioned in Article 21. Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1= 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 772 (Constitutional Bench of 9 Judges).

The theory of ‘implied bar’ does not apply to RTI law which has been enacted to give full scope to this fundamental right. Even the right to privacy fades out in front of this right in larger public interest. The “public authorities” under the Act cannot claim any immunity for disclosure of a so-called third party document/information as larger public interest outweighs private commercial interest under this law. So, RBI was bound to disclose the information about third party information that was deposited with it under the BR Act by the third party (Goa Co-Operative Bank). (Reserve Bank of India v. Shri Rui Ferreira, AIR 2012 Bom 1)  

The ultimate object of the RTI law, as gleaned from its preamble & different provisions, is to achieve transparency and accountability with regard to affairs of a “public authority”, the definition of which being inclusive must be given liberal construction in order to advance objective of the Act. A body, institution or an organization, which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution may still answer the definition of public authority under section 2(h) if the government holds ultimate control over its affairs & finances. (Agriculture Produces Market Committee v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2015 Supreme (Guj) 983); Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) Supreme (HP) 954). The doctrine of deep and pervasive control based on the decisions rendered by the courts under Article 12 is not relevant for answering the question whether a body is a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act. It is enough if it is shown that the authority is controlled by the government. (Indian Railway Welfare Organisation v. D M Gautamm, 2010 Supreme (Del) 395)

The “private bodies” directly or indirectly controlled by the government are covered under the Act. (Mulloor Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State Of Kerala, (2012) Supreme (Ker) 311). The word “controlled” used in section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act has to be understood in the context in which it has been used vis-a-vis a body owned or substantially financed by the government, that is, the control of the body is of such a degree which amounts to substantial control over the management and affairs of the body. (Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala, (2013) Supreme (SC) 943).

The word ‘substantial’, not defined in the Act, is not synonymous with ‘dominant’ or ‘majority’. It is closer to ‘material’ or ‘important’ or ‘of considerable value.’ ‘Substantially’ is closer to ‘essentially’, ‘just enough to avoid the de minimis principle’. (Ibid) Even non-government organisation that is substantially, directly or indirectly, financed by the funds of the government will fall within the definition of “public authority”.  (Principal, M. D. Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Ambala City v. State Information Commissioner, AIR 2008 P & H 101); CSEPDI v. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited, (2015) Supreme(Mad) 1521)

Even a private college that receives financial grant from the government is covered by the definition of “public authority”. (Committee of Management, Shanti Niketan inter college v. State of UP, (2008) Supreme All 999). Funds and finances come in multiple shapes to the public authorities from the government like equity, grants and concessions. For example, a bailout package of Rs 5,000 crore by the Central Government to the IFCI is substantial financing which answers the description of a public authority under the Act.  (IFCI Ltd v. Ravinder Balwani, (2010) Supreme (Del) 570).

Where a company has been created under the rules framed by the State government which holds 49% stake in it, the government has substantial control on it and the company is “public Authority”. (Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd v. State of Orissa, (2009) Supreme (Ori) 403). The criterion for determination of meaning of words ‘substantially financed’ is not less than 50% holding, though the company law gives significant rights even to those who own 26% of the shares in a company. (Bangalore International Airport Limited v. Karnataka Information Commission, (2010) Supreme Kar 149).

But where the majority of shares is not held by the government but by private persons and the government has power to ‘nominate’ just one director on the board of the body, it cannot be said that the government exercises any functional control over its affairs. (Agriculture Produce Market Committee v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2015 Supreme (Guj) 983 (a huge catena of case laws has been cited and discussed in this case).

It is not necessary that a public authority should have been created under a statute. It can be creation of Notification of the government. (Sri Kannikaparameshwari Co-operative Bank Ltd v. State of Karnataka, 2008 0 Supreme (Kar) 381). A bank not established under Notification of the State government with not a single director appointed by the government and all directors elected by the private share holders of the bank and the government having no substantial equity in it, cannot be a Public Authority within the meaning of the Act. (Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd v. State Information Commissioner, AIR 2009 Bom 75).

End word:

In view of the J&K Chief Information Commissioner’s order dated 24-04-2012, J&K Bank is a “public authority” within the meaning of section 2(f) of J&K RTI Act, 2009 for the following two main reasons: One, JK Bank was created pursuant to the late Maharaja’s Memorandum of 1939, Maharaja in whom all powers of legislative, executive and judicial nature were vested, ordering for the creation the JK Bank and as that Memorandum/Notification is protected under section 155 of the JK Constitution, it was creation of law. Two, three permanent directors including one as chairman-cum- CEO under the Memorandum of the Bank are directly appointed by the State Government.  

The State does not enjoy similar power with other private sector banks. It may not be out of place to mention here that. Justice Y B Nargotra dissenting with majority opinion of two other judges in Firdous Ahmad Tanki v. J&K Bank Ltd, (2006) 2 JKJ 146= (2010) 7 JKJ 488= 2006 0 Sri LJ 1 has observed that as the majority of the share holding in JK Bank is held by the State Government, [presently it is 59% plus; read GK dated 12-01-2017 (Government of J&K today announced an amount of Rs. 532 crore as additional capital infusion in two tranches during next financial year to retain its strategic equity share of 53)] it is “fully competent and powerful enough to elect all the directors” because the minority share holders group is “in no position to influence the election of directors”. Non-government directors are elected by majority vote at the time of AGM if the vacancy has arisen.

However, the operation of that order has been stayed in a writ appeal filed by the JK Bank against it before the Hon’ble High Court of JK in 2012. 

The writer is author of Inside the Vault (fiction) and six other books on law, including the two volume book on Law of Contract (Thomson Reuters Publication, 2016). He is an academician, story teller and freelance-columnist. He has contributed hundreds of narratives to multiple media channels.

The post RTI Act: Public Authorities and Banks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post This Merger is Another Step Towards Bank Privatisation: Thomas Franco appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Saying that the share of inactive accounts in India is 48 percent, “the highest in the world and about twice the average of 25 percent for developing economies”, the World Bank seeks to blame Modi’s policies for this. Titled “The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fin-tech Revolution”, the survey report says, “Part of the explanation might be India’s Jan Dhan Yojana scheme, developed by the government to increase account ownership.”

Authored by Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake Hess, further referring to the Jan Dhan scheme, the report states, “Launched in August 2014, the programme had brought an additional 310 million Indians into the formal banking system by March 2018”, but laments many of them “might not yet have had an opportunity to use their new account.”
 

 

As against India’s 48 percent inactive accounts, as observed over the last 12 months, the report states, “In Afghanistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka about a third of account owners have an inactive account, while in Bangladesh 21 percent do. And Pakistan has a rate of just 13 percent, though it also has a low rate of account ownership compared with other economies in the region.” It adds, “In high-income economies only 4 percent of account owners have an inactive account.”

The World Bank’s triennial Global Findex report, as the study is identified alternatively, it is based on a survey of more than 150,000 representative individuals, claiming to provide a bird’s-eye view of patterns and regularities in data pertaining to finance and financial inclusion – such as saving behavior, use of mobile money, and preferred modes of sending and receiving remittances – in 140 economies.

Pointing towards the existence of gender gap in inactive accounts, the report says, “In developing economies female account owners are on average 5 percentage points more likely than male account owners to have an inactive account. In India, however, this gender gap is about twice as large: while 54 percent of women with an account reported having made no deposit or withdrawal in the past year, only 43 percent of men with an account did so.”
 

 

The report also points out that in developing economies “76 percent of adults with an inactive account have a mobile phone, including 66 percent in India”, though adding, “This represents an opportunity for expanding the use of accounts through digital technology.”

According to the report, “Indeed, having an account does not necessarily imply that people save at all. Globally, 42 percent of account owners reported not having saved any money in the past year. In high-income economies 26 percent of account owners reported not having saved any money. And in Brazil, India, Russia, and Turkey — all economies where about 70 percent or more of adults have an account — about 60 percent reported not saving at all.”

Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net/

The post World Bank: India’s 48% bank accounts inactive, thanks to Modi’s Jan Dhan, twice that of developing countries appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It means, you can now do transactions of Rs 2 lakh (both withdrawals and deposits) only at home branches. Crossing the limit will cost customers a minimum of Rs 150 or Rs 5 per thousand.

Not only this, the Mumbai-headquartered bank capped the third-party or non-home branches transactions at Rs 25,000 a day. The same fees will set in at the same level in case of exceeding the limit.

Earlier, it used to allow Rs 50,000 cash transactions (both withdrawals and deposits) per day.

The bank said the review has been done to discourage usage of cash and push digital transactions.

The bank claimed that the hiked charges are at par with the industry trend.

Its larger peer ICICI Bank’s website shows a minimum charge of Rs 150 for more than four cash transactions (deposits and withdrawals) at home branches for savings accounts, similar to what HDFC Bank is proposing.

Axis Bank, the third largest private lender, charges Rs150 or Rs 5 per thousand, for cash deposits of over Rs1 lakh per month or from the fifth withdrawal at branches, its website said.

It can be noted that a high-level panel led by former Finance Secretary Ratan Watal had called for imposing “nominal charges after a certain limit” for cash transactions. Working towards a less-cash economy, the budget 2017- 2018 has
placed a blanket ban on cash transactions above Rs 3 lakh, following the report by the SIT on black money.

(With PTI inputs)
 

The post Another blow to ‘aam aadmi’ post demonetisation, shell out Rs 150 for more than 4 cash transactions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
प्रवर्तन निदेशालय भी विजय माल्या को भगोड़ा घोषित कर चुका है। इसी वजह से माल्या फिलहाल लंदन में रह रहे हैं।
 
इसी बीच विजय माल्या ने आज ट्विट्स कर पीएम मोदी के शासन में जांच एजेंसियों की निष्पक्षता और वैधता पर सवालिया निशान खड़े किए हैं। माल्या ने अपने पहले ट्वीट में कहा कि, 2017 में मेरी सिर्फ यही उम्मीद होगी कि सही, कानूनी और निष्पक्ष जांच को लेकर पीएम मोदी जी के विजन पर उनकी सरकार सही तरह से अमल करेगी।
 
वहीं दूसरे ट्वीट में माल्या ने कहा कि करप्शन पर सख्त रवैया रखने वाले हमारे डायनमिक प्रधानमंत्री क्या अपनी क्रिमिनल एजेंसी की सही, निष्पक्ष और कानूनी तरीके से जांच की गारंटी देंगे?
 
अपने तीसरे ट्वीट में उन्होंने भारतीय मीडिया पर निशाना साधते हुए कहा कि, यह अफसोस की बात है कि सही, निष्पक्ष और कानूनी तरीके से जांच की अपील पर मेरे ट्वीट्स को हेडलाइंस के भूखे मीडिया ने गलत ढंग से पेश किया। एजेंसियों के पास ज्यादा अधिकार होते हैं।

आपको बता दें कि, विजय माल्या पर देश के 17 बैंकों का 9400 करोड़ रुपए से ज्यादा का बकाया है। माल्या जांच एजेंसियों द्वारा गिरफ्तार किए जाने के डर से लंदन में रह रहे हैं। इसके अलावा लोन से जुड़े एक चीटिंग के केस में कोर्ट में पेश न होने की वजह से माल्या के खिलाफ नॉन बेलेबल वारंट भी जारी हो चुका है। वहीं विजय माल्या अपने ऊपर लगे आरोपों को गलत करार दे चुके है। वे कई बार दावा कर चुके हैं कि लोन डिफॉल्ट केस में वे बैंकों के साथ बातचीत कर रहे हैं।

Courtesy: National Dastak
 

The post 9 हजार करोड़ वाले विजय माल्या ने पीएम मोदी को दिखाया आइना appeared first on SabrangIndia.

हालांकि, पैसे किनके हैं और कहां भेजे गए, इस संबंध में अभी विस्तृत जानकारी नहीं मिल पाई है क्योंकि जांच अभी भी चल ही रही है। खबरों के मुताबिक ऑरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के खिलाफ दो मामले दर्ज हुए हैं जबकि आईसीआईसीआई बैंक, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा और इंडसइंड बैंक के खिलाफ भी 1-1 केस रजिस्टर किया गया है।
 
देश से बाहर गए 12,357 करोड़ रुपये में सबसे बड़ी रकम पिछले साल दर्ज बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा मामले में पाई गई। ईडी को पता चला कि इस बैंक की दिल्ली स्थित एक शाखा में ईडी से 6,000 करोड़ रुपये भारत से बाहर भेजे गए। जांच में यह भी पता चला है कि गुजरात में आईसीआईसीआई बैंक की एक शाखा ने 5,395.75 करोड़ और महाराष्ट्र में ऑरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स की एक शाखा से जुड़े दो मामलों में 56.51 करोड़ जबकि इसी बैंक की उत्तर प्रदेश स्थित एक शाखा से 600 करोड़ रुपये बाहर भेजे गए। इनसे जुड़े मामले क्रमशः 2014 और 2015 में दर्ज किए गए।

ये सारे मामले प्रिवेंशन ऑफ मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग ऐक्ट (पीएमएलए) 2002 के तहत दर्ज किए गए हैं। ऑरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स और बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक हैं। डेटा के साथ अटैच ईडी के बयान में कहा गया है, ‘इन मामलों की जांच से पहली नजर में तो यही लगता है कि कुछ मामलों में बैंक अधिकारियों की मिलीभगत है।’
 
किसी खास मामले का जिक्र किए बिना एक अधिकारी ने बताया कि आखिर इस तरह की मिलीभगत कैसे संभव हुई। उन्होंने कहा कि अधिकारियों ने नो-योर-कस्टमर (केवाइसी) के अलावा नॉन-रेजिडेंट ऑर्डिनरी (एनआरओ) अकाउंट्स बनाने से संबंधित नियमों के उल्लंघन में मदद की। यह जांच का विषय है कि ऐसा उन्होंने जानबूझकर किया या फिर अनजाने में। साथ ही, पहचान प्रक्रिया को नजरअंदाज कर खाते खोलने के मामले भी हो सकते हैं।
 
पिछले सप्ताह कई एजेंसियों ने कहा कि बैंकों के काम-काज करने के तरीकों पर उनकी नजर है। आईबी ने कहा कि वह 500 बैंक शाखाओं पर नजर बनाए हुए है जबकि इनकम टैक्स डिपार्टमेंट ने पहली बार बैंकों पर छापेमारी भी की। इधर, रिजर्व बैंक के डिप्टी गवर्नर एस एस मुंद्रा ने भी एक बयान में कहा, 'आरबीआई के निरीक्षक बैंकों के विभिन्न डेटा पॉइंट्स को खंगाल रहे हैं और लेन-देन या काम-काज में कोई गलती की भनक लगते ही जांच शुरू की जाएगी तथा उचित कार्रवाई होगी।'
 
कम लोगो को पता है की मोदी सरकार बनते ही विदेश पैसे भेजने वाले पैसे की सीमा को बढ़ा दिया गया जिससे देश से बाहर कालाधन हवाला के जरिए भेजने मे काफी तेजी आई है।

Courtesy: National Dastak
 

The post 4 बैंकों की मिलीभगत से देश से बाहर भेजे गए 12,357 करोड़ रुपए appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Demonetisation and Banks’ Lending Rates appeared first on SabrangIndia.