Enforcement Directorate has alleged that Amnesty International UK routed more than Rs 51 crore to Amnesty India in violation of FCRA to “fund anti-national activities in the guise of export of services”. ED has accused the so-called NGO in its prosecution complaint, which is equivalent to a charge sheet, at a special court in New Delhi. Two of the projects named ‘Kashmir: Access to Justice’ and ‘Justice for 1984 Sikh Massacre’ of Amnesty India were marked by ED in the complaint.
The chargesheet was filed by ED on July 9 against Amnesty International India Pvt Ltd (AIIPL), Indians for Amnesty International Trust (IAIT), and former AIIPL CEOs G Ananthapadmanabhan and Aakar Patel, accusing them of money laundering. As per the chargesheet, the Indian chapter of Amnesty International was founded by the name Amnesty International India Foundation Trust (AIIFT) in 1999. When Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) came into effect in 2011-12, the NGO was granted permission to receive foreign funds, but it was revoked soon after the authorities got ‘adverse inputs’ from government agencies.
Following the steps taken by the government, Amnesty International set up a non-profit organisation named IAIT in 2012 and a for-profit commercial entity, AIIPL, in 2013. At that time, AIIPL was known as Sector Research Consultancy & Support Services (India) Pvt Ltd. Ideally, IAIT was supposed to get funds from domestic sources only to carry out human rights-related activities.
On the other hand, AIIPL was supposed to do the same work in exchange for a fee marked as ‘export of services’ via reports, campaigns and more. Throughout the existence of these two entities, a similar set of office bearers operated them in the same building. There was only one major client of AIIPL, which was Amnesty International UK. Notably, IAIT had bought a 99.8 per cent stake in AIIPL, and the remaining share was held by the trustees of IAIT.
In 2015, Amnesty International UK used the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) route to invest Rs 10 crore in AIIPL. Out of the funds received by AIIPL, nine crores were put in a fixed deposit (FD). Based on the FD, IAIT gained an overdraft limit of over Rs 14 crore from a bank, and the funds were used for NGO activities. In the following years, AIIPL received over Rs 36 crores, including the money deposited in FD from Amnesty International UK in exchange for “export of services”.
According to ED, the process used by Amnesty to receive funds was nothing but a way to avoid FCRA regulations and continue NGO activities under the disguise of commercial activities. As per the investigation agency, the money received by IAIT and AIIPL falls under criminal activities as per the law.
On the other hand, the NGO has claimed they had done nothing wrong as the same format was being followed by them in other countries, that is, setting up two entities, one for-profit and the other not-for-profit, to carry out its activities.
As per the agency, there were 47 projects taken by the NGO. Out of these, 12 projects that AIIPL did for Amnesty International were marked as ‘Technical Services’. Apart from those, six were linked to Kashmir, two were linked to the 1984 Sikh Massacre, six linked to the coal section, three to women-related matters, two related to migrants issues, eight linked to human rights awareness, three on ‘ready to report’ and four linked to undertrial matters.
The highest funding came for three projects. ‘Access for Justice’ in Kashmir received GBP 46,867 or Rs 44.5 lakhs, the Human Cost of Coal Research Project received USD 90,000.00 or Rs 71.5 lakhs, and Mobile Developing and field testing technology received CHF 80,000.00 or Rs 64.8 lakhs.
ED further noted that the aim of AIIPL was to generate public outrage using media pressure and build pressure on political parties. They used media, TV and radio along with RTI to mobilise public support for its campaigns. Interestingly, ED also mentioned that Amnesty made sure that the 1984 Sikh massacre became one of the key issues of the 2017 Punjab election manifesto.
Speaking about the Kashmir campaign, ED mentioned that one of the contracts read, “Groups like Human Rights Watch have said that courts-martial in India are highly biased and subject to corruption. The Supplier, i.e. M/s AIIPL, will seek to obtain details of court-martial proceedings and analyse them to determine if they are transparent, independent, impartial, aligned with international standards for fair trial proceedings, and constitute an effective remedy for victims of rights violations.”
According to the agency, the contract language in all the services was in line with the NGO activities for which an FCRA license is required if foreign funding was being received. The ED statement read, “When the FCRA License was earlier cancelled during the year 2011-12 by Govt. of India due to the adverse inputs received from Intelligence agencies, the same activities are being run in the guise of commercial activities. This is highly suspicious when national interest is concerned. The money is routed from the M/s Amnesty International United Kingdom to M/s Amnesty International India Pvt Ltd in India to fund anti-national activities in the guise of export of services, which is nothing but the supply. Of report if any and doing campaigning, mass gatherings etc.”
ED imposed over Rs 61 crores penalty on Amnesty India
On June 9, it was reported that ED had filed a prosecution complaint against the NGO and its related entities. The probe by ED against the so-called human rights organisation had started following a case against it that was filed by the CBI for violation of FCRA rules. The CBI had booked Amnesty International India Pvt Ltd, Indians for Amnesty International Trust, Amnesty International India Foundation Trust and others under Section 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 11, 35 & 39 of FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulatory Act), 2010.
On July 8, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued a show-cause notice to Amnesty India International Pvt. Ltd and its former CEO Aakar Patel for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). Besides, the central agency has also imposed a penalty of ₹51.72 crores and ₹ ten crores on Amnesty India and Patel, respectively. Reportedly, Amnesty International (UK) had received large sums of money through its FCRA non-compliant companies in India.
In October 2018, the central agency opened an investigation into Amnesty International based on a case registered by the CBI against AIIPL, IAIT, Amnesty International India Foundation Trust (AIIFT), and Amnesty International South Asia Foundation (AISAF) under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulation Act).
Aakar Patel was stopped from leaving India
Earlier in April, Aakar Patel was stopped from boarding a flight to the USA at the Bengaluru airport. The former Amnesty India chief had tweeted that he was put on an exit control list. Patel claimed that he had obtained his passport through a court order.
He added that a CBI officer informed him that he is on a Look Out Circular because of the case against Amnesty International India regarding the FCRA violations. He was later granted temporary relief by the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi yesterday. And the CBI has stated that they would challenge the court order.
Amnesty has a history of anti-India activities
On several occasions, Amnesty International and its Indian chapter have been found to be involved in anti-India activities. In a report published in OpIndia in 2019, the connections between Amnesty International India, the British government, and radical Islamists were exposed. The organisation has a history of meddling with the internal affairs of India. It has constantly been trying to falsely project India as a violator of human rights and the ‘oppressor’ of Muslims.
On several occasions, Amnesty India and its former head Aakar Patel kept peddling blatant lies and fake news to portray India negatively. It also campaigned for the arrested Urban Naxals in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. Therefore, its actions are clearly tantamount to foreign interference in the domestic issues of India, and it is only appropriate that strict action is taken against it.
