hroni

Does Satyam Say it All?

I agree fully and I apologize for the Madoff line especially since while it was meant for illustration purposes alone, it clearly was greatly misproportionate and almost irrelevant. Please, keep your previous reply to me ready for other poster´s possible inquiries, since it shows that it´s not entirely possible or even worthwhile to defend oneself against everything thrown at you. I sincerely hope I will continue to enjoy the benefit of your articles for a long time to come.


On Jan 15 02:59 AM Rakesh Saxena wrote:

> Dear hroni: FYI, scrutiny is not a problem. Where the "innocent until
> proven guitly" maxim applies is in relation to the facts of the allegations.
> For example, in the subject instance, there is not even a formal
> charge (let alone a crime), the Thai legal request is for only ONE
> loan transaction, the transaction took place in 1995, senior Thai
> politicians were also cited in the "complaint", Thailand does not
> formally allege that I was a bank officer or in a position of trust,
> and I was living in Switzerland at that time. Besides, an extradition
> request is not similar to an indictment. And, finally, I think you
> cannot confuse the state of the Thai legal system (18 coups and 18
> constitutions since 1932) with the US or Canada. To repeat, scrutiny
> is indeed unavoidable--but the facts should not be compromised, and
> web postings should not be construed as the truth. Also, drawing
> vague comparisons with Madoff are entirely misplaced, thought the
> courts did apply the "guilty until..." maxim when granting him bail.
> There is one final distinction: between allegations relating to persons
> entrusted with funds on one hand and allegations about deal-making,
> and deals going sour on the other. Many thanks for your comments.
> - Rakesh