India fails to attend meet on combating tax evasion

New Delhi/Berlin, Oct 29: India today failed to attend an OECD meeting in Berlin where a multilateral agreement requiring a commitment to follow international standards of confidentiality for information received relating to black money was signed. Official sources said that India was not able to attend the Berlin meeting where it was to sign a multilateral competent authority agreement and intended first information exchange date. Read-Black Money: List of 627 foreign account holders submitted to Supreme Court

Government of India had to give an international commitment that it would follow international standards on information received. Late night reports indicate that India was not able to attend that meet, they said without citing any reasons for the absence. At the meeting of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 51 countries signed the agreement to share financial data and boost efforts to crack down on tax evasion.

The signatories to the agreement include most European Union nations as well as tax havens like Liechenstein, British Virgin Island and the Cayman Island. They will begin automatically exchanging data collected by financial institutions as early as 2017, the OECD said. New Delhi also fears that treaties for exchange of information on black money holders with countries like USA, Germany and Switzerland may be delayed on grounds of breach of confidentiality if names of account-holders are disclosed improperly.

Government fears emanate against the backdrop of the raging debate in the country over disclosure of names of black money holders in foreign banks given by other governments and entities.

On a day the government provided to the Supreme Court a list of 627 individuals who have accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, government sources feared adverse consequences if the names get disclosed or come to public domain. They point out that when the Supreme Court gave an order on May 1 this year asking for disclosure of 8 names, against whom investigations were concluded, to be given to petitioner Ram Jethmalani despite the fact that no evidence of wrong doing was found against them, there was a contradiction with an earlier order.

The Court had earlier in 2011 clearly stated that disclosure of names against whom no evidence of wrong-doing was found would lead to “dangerous circumstances”. It had also said that only after the state arrives as a prima facie conclusion of wrong doing based on material evidence only then would a question arise on the right of the public to be informed.

After the 8 names got into public domain, Germany wrote to India in June this year expressing surprise at this revelation and asked India to provide an explanation of how this information was disclosed.