Key accused grilled in Brakel cheating case

Bhanu P Lohumi

Tribune News Service

Shimla, October 12

Speeding up investigations in alleged cheating case against Brakel Corporation, the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SVACB) has quizzed one of the two main accused for two days to extract information.

Company ‘misrepresented’ facts

Advertisement

• The probe concluded that Brakel Corporation NV had misrepresented the facts and submitted false documents along with bids to the state electricity board and the government.
• Moreover, the company was not authorised to enter into the business of hydro-electric power projects as per the object clause of its Memorandum of Association

Before questioning, the SVACB had collected the original documents lying in various departments and branches for verification of facts.

Investigations revealed that the company neither had technical, nor financial capacity to execute the twin projects of Jangi-Thopan and Thopan-Powari hydropower projects of 480 MW each in Kinnaur district.

The SVACB had registered a case of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC against the company in August 2019. The successive BJP and Congress governments had delayed action in the case. The probe concluded that Brakel Corporation NV had deliberately misrepresented the facts and submitted false documents along with bids to the electricity board and the government.

Moreover, Brakel Corporation NV was not authorised to enter into the business as per the object clause of its Memorandum of Association and the possibility of taking tender for subletting cannot be ruled out, sources said.

In the Registration Certification of “Brakel Corporation NV” filed along with the bid documents, Brakel Corporation was a Company Registered in Curacao on February 13, 2005, but during the investigations, it was found that the company was incorporated on February 13, 2006.

Interestingly, the bid documents were purchased on December 13, 2005, while the company was registered on February 13, 2006, and the directors of both companies were different.

The investigations revealed that promoters allegedly set up another company with a virtually identical name and only added the letter ‘I’ in front of NV and made alterations in the documents supplied to the state which suggested that the objects were of Brakel NV and not of Brakel INV.