Citibank deposes on Satyam's seven accounts

SATYAM SAGA THE TRIAL

Citibank vice president Vineet Puri deposed today before the special court on the Satyam Computer Services scam, to present the company’s transaction details from 2001 to 2008.Tomorrow, someone from ICICI Bank is to depose.

Puri, who earlier worked here as branch operations head, was flown in from Hong Kong to depose before the court. He said Satyam maintained seven accounts in Citibank in the period and explained the transactions in each account.

Puri said the bank prepared information from its records to answer specific queries from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The CBI said it intended to present details of various transactions for providing a perspective on credits, debits, interest earned and tax deducted at source at the software company over a period of time.

Satyam founder Ramalinga Raju's counsel argued the various documents presented by CBI were not in conformity with the Bankers' Book Evidence Act and asked the court not to recognise these as evidence. The judge, however, allowed the documents to be marked after asking the defence counsel to register his objections.

All the accused were present today. However, Raju, who wore a mask in the court hall, left the premises early after the court allowed him to do so on health grounds.

The CBI chargesheet said Satyam maintained deposit and current accounts with many scheduled banks, in addition to a number of non-scheduled banks over the years.

So far, officials from BNP Paribas, HDFC and Citibank have deposed before the court. The CBI has listed 15 banks in all -- the others being Bank of Baroda, ICICI, HSBC, Vijaya, State Bank of India, Global Trust Bank, Allahabad Bank, Indian Bank, State Bank of Travencore, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canara Bank and Times Bank.

Satyam had projected huge amounts as cash and bank balances in its annual financial statements. Too much cash as an idle resource indicated poor financial management of the company, the CBI said.

Loudspeakers
Following a representation from the defence counsel that the arguments were inaudible, the court today agreed to install speakers to ensure the accused persons were able to hear the arguments. The judge said the speakers must not disturb the proceedings at other courts in the complex.