BCCI-Modi letters over IPL show charges, counter-charges
BCCI alleges bid rigging, shadow ownership of franchises; Modi claims charges were retaliation for outing Tharoor.
The show-cause notices sent by the Board of Control for Cricket in India to disgraced former Indian Premier League Commissioner Lalit Modi and his replies contain a series of allegations and counter-allegations that put a shadow over the functioning of the tournament in particular, and Indian cricket administration in general.
The BCCI sent its first show-cause notice to Modi on 26 April 2010. (The voluminous documents have been released by Modi).
The first show-cause notice enumerated several charges against him, the most damaging of which were that he had rigged the bid for some franchises, and that he held proxy stakes in companies that owned shares of teams through his relatives, of which the BCCI claimed to have no knowledge.
The first show-cause notice mentioned at the outset that a complaint had been received against Modi’s “unprofessional” conduct by Rendezvous Sports World, the winner of the Kochi franchise. Modi had outed the names of the shareholders of the franchisee on Twitter, which led to the entire controversy. The late Sunanda Pushkar was among those named. Her husband Shashi Tharoor had to resign from his post as a Union minister.
It went on to say that complaints against Modi had been received from several quarters, including from former cricketers and administrators. In his response, Modi challenged this assertion asking for documentary proof, which BCCI did not provide.
The BCCI claimed that Modi had stakes in three franchisees: Rajasthan Royals, Kolkata Knight Riders and Kings XI Punjab, through his relatives. It went on to add that in the case of the Royals, the original company that won the bid had transferred it to another company, in violation of the rules.
The second, more direct charge, pertained to Modi’s alleged attempts to rig the bid in favour of two companies owned by the Videocon group and the Adani group. The Videocon group bid for the Pune team, while the Adani group bid for an Ahmedabad team. The Congress had alleged at that time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was then the chairman of the Gujarat Cricket Association, was behind Adani’s bid. That charge has not been substantiated.
It added that conditions had been introduced that made it difficult for bidders to compete fairly. They were related to total net worth and bank guarantees that the BCCI found excessive. The board claimed to have been kept in the dark about this. The BCCI finally decided to cancel the first bid, in which only Adani and Videocon could compete. Subsequently, it was held again and the two companies lost out. The notice says that Modi was asked to stay at “arm’s length” from the process.
According to BCCI, after Modi failed to get “favoured” companies on board, he allegedly took to “arm-twisting” RSW into transferring its rights. The BCCI alleged that when he failed to get the company to dance to his tunes, he released the names of its stakeholders. Soon after, he lost his position as IPL commissioner.
The notice also alleged Modi had caused losses worth several crores of rupees to the BCCI owing to discrepancies in awarding media rights. It added that Modi had allegedly given Internet rights to a company whose functionaries included his step-son-in-law.
Modi responded with his inimitable aggression. In a response three times longer than the BCCI’s show-cause notice, he requested then BCCI president Shashank Manohar and members of the governing council to recuse themselves from participating in any probe as, he contended, their presence would compromise it.
Modi alleged that BCCI was acting against him as he had “exposed” improprieties related to the participation of Chennai Super Kings, which was owned by India Cements, a company which was headed by N. Srinivasan, then the BCCI secretary. He added that everything he had acted throughout with the approval of Srinivasan. “The actual contracts that came to me for signing were after approval by the IPL/ BCCI corporate lawyers,” he wrote.
Denying that he had proxy stakes in any franchisees, he admitted his relatives did have stakes, but contended that they belonged to reputed business families who had the wherewithal to buy them on their own. He claimed that his connections to them were known to BCCI officials who had been invited to family functions, and that no concerns were raised when they made moves to control stakes in the franchisees. Challenging what he termed as Srinivasan’s “double standards”, he demanded how, if India Cements could own stakes in Chennai Super Kings, was it “objectionable” even if he had “alleged covert ownership”.
He defended the transfer of the bid in the case of Royals by maintaining that several other companies had also acted similarly and that it was done legally, with full knowledge of the board.
As to the allegation of bid rigging, Modi defended his actions by stating that the conditions had been drawn up following “consultations” with a “large number of people” from the BCCI and that they had been approved by the president. He maintained that conditions were drawn up in good faith.
He also made the sensational claim that Manohar had instructed him to accept RSW’s bid despite it reaching late, following instructions from Tharoor. However, that round of bidding was cancelled. Modi maintained that since he had not rigged the bid in the first place, the losses attributed to his alleged actions were “speculative.” He also denied charges of “arm-twisting” and made a counter-charge that the notice was “retaliatory” in nature and meant to avenge the “embarrassment” over Tharoor’s resignation.
On charges related to media and Internet rights too, he maintained his innocence.
The other two show-cause notices contained charges of a more technical nature. Modi responded to both, point by point.
Apart from documents related to his dealings with the BCCI, Modi has also released documents related to the 16 notices he received from the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, along with his responses. Businessman Vivek Nagpal, who has been accused of being a “hawala operator” by former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, and is allegedly associated with influential people in Delhi, owns an offshore entity in the tax haven British Virgin Islands. The entity, which goes by the name of Grand Accent Overseas Limited, has H-27/1 Sainik Farm, Western Avenue, Delhi 110062 as its listed address. It has Vivek and his wife Aarti Nagpal as the beneficial owners, according to data made public by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
According to ICIJ, the Switzerland based financial services company, UBS AG helped the Nagpals in floating the entity and acted as the master client, or an in- Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, president of West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi complaining of “resentment” among his constituents at the government’s decision not to host Iftar parties dur-