EU Ombudsman puts Commission's corporate-dominated Expert Groups back under the spotlight with fresh investigation

For the first time, the damaging influence of big business lobbying has been a prominent election topic across Europe, and nowhere is this role more evident than in the European Commission's influential advisory groups, instrumental in shaping new laws and legislation, from banking to climate change to food safety. Unfortunately those in charge at the Commission are now trying to get away with ignoring the problem, which is why the recent investigation into the groups announced by the European Ombudsman is such good news. This could provide the impetus to both newly-elected MEPs and civil society groups to ensure that when the Commission comes to review the overarching rules for its advisory groups next year, it is the public interest rather than corporate interests that are at the heart of EU decision making.

Overhauling Expert Groups in need of new impetus

Trying to clean up the Commission's advisory groups – formally known as 'Expert Groups' – is nothing new. The European Parliament has been attempting to for years, as have civil society groups, including many members of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU (link is external)). In November 2011 Parliamentarians were so exasperated by the Commission's lack of progress that they froze the Expert Groups budget. The European Parliament demanded that its four conditions were formalised before the budget freeze was lifted: no corporate domination of Groups; no lobbyist sitting in Groups in a 'personal capacity' (i.e. pretending to be independent); public calls for application for all new Groups; and full transparency.

However, it was only when the money started looking like it would run out, in March 2012, that the Commission undertook a full review of all its Expert Groups. The budget freeze was lifted September 2012 under the proviso that the conditions would be treated as de facto rules as the official review of the horizontal rules (those that apply to all Groups and all departments aka DGs) wasn't until 2015. An informal process between the Parliament and the Commission was launched to oversee the implementation, with the Parliament threatening to re-freeze the budget if progress wasn't made.

A report produced by ALTER-EU with the support of Arbeiterkammer and ÖGB in November, A Year of Broken Promises (link is external) shows that many Expert Groups created since the budget freeze was lifted have in fact not complied with conditions, particularly in certain economic and politically important Commission departments, like Taxation and Customs Union or the Secretariat General itself. Corporate interests continue to dominate and their lobbyists are still pretending to be in groups in a personal capacity rather representing, for example, KPMG or Shell. The intervening year since the budget was lifted has been one of broken promises, which is why the investigation from the Ombudsman is so necessary.

http://corporateeurope.org/expert-groups/2014/05/eu-ombudsman-puts-commissions-corporate-dominated-expert-groups-back-under

Best Corporate Investigator in Delhi

We are Private Detective in Delhi, Detective Agency,Private Investigation,Detectives Services Delhi,Private Investigators,Employment Verification.

MMC Investigators Private Limited is the most trusted Detective Agency actively operating throughout India. MMC Investigators Detective Agency also executes foreign Investigation assignments. MMC Detective Agency is the No.1 Detective Agency in the world with very strong Network of super specialist Agents in and around Africa, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Dhaka, Dubai, Europe, Gulf, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Srilanka, UAE, UK, and USA.

Multi Dimenssional Management Consultants Agency is in the business of Private Detective & Investigation since 1978, employing more than 200 Full time Professional Private Investigators on our payroll and having more than 1000 on our panel operating around the world.

MMC Detective Agency R & D team consists of well-qualified technical experts working round the clock to support & enhance our services technically. Our competence and excellence can be accessed from the fact that we were adjudged the best Detective Agency in India, during the years 1989, 1995, 2001, 2008 and 2011.

Our Detective Agency has been licensed for the last 24 years and we are in the business since the last 60 years & our present Chief is a Senior Ex-CBI Officer. He took over charge from his father, who was also a Senior Ex-CBI Officers & the founder of these businesses. Our biggest strength is that we are a Fourth Generation organization Detective Agency with all renowned accreditation associations throughout the world.

Our Detective Agency team consists of investigators who have come from a variety of backgrounds i.e. intelligence, law enforcement, government, information technology & The Armed forces. All Corporate investigator in Delhi are required to undergo a professional on-the-job training program conducted by the senior investigators & departmental heads of the organization. We have built up a reputation of being able to understand a client's needs and then provide remarkable solutions keeping in mind their financial and time frame constrains.

Our MMC Investigators Detective Agencies specialization lies in client's satisfaction. It consists of a team of highly Proficiency & Experienced Agents having specialized experience in different fields. They are expert of Corporate investigator in Delhi, confidential verifications and inquiries for business, personal services, moveable and immoveable assets verification, corporate services including criminal investigation, Pre and Post Investigaton and consultancy into the affairs of custom, sales tax and income tax. Legal and specialized services are also being provided by our legal experts.

Our company provides solutions to clients honestly, quickly and cost effectively relating to our services. MMC Investigators Detective Agency is your solution because we have over 24 years experience within the Private Investigation and Private Detective Services in India, supplying clients with the answers they sometimes strive for, we maintain the highest standards of Private Investigation.

All our investigators are Government Licensed and Competency Accredited. Please don't be nervous about contacting us, we are here to serve and assist you and help you through your
investigation requirements.

BY
VM Pandit
Corporate Investigator in Delhi
Ex-CBI Officer India

India's chief investigator wants you to enjoy rape

India's Central Bureau of Investigation chief sparks outrage by comparing legalisation of sports gambling to 'enjoying' rape.

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Ranjit Sinha. Picture: SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP Source: Supplied

 

INDIA'S chief investigator has inflamed that nation's rape debate by comparing the legalisation of sports gambling to 'enjoying' sexual assault. 

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Ranjit Sinha was involved in a debate on sporting ethics. His position was that the laws should be lightened after a review.

"I feel that if we can have lotteries ... if we can have casinos in some tourist resorts and if the government can declare schemes of voluntary disclosure of black money, what is the harm if we legalise betting? Above all, do we have the enforcement agencies?"

Mr Sinha then said: "It is very easy to say you don't have enforcement agencies. It is like saying if you cannot stop rape, you enjoy it."

He then immediately attempted to clarify the statement - but made matters worse.

"It is better to have something, legalise it, and earn some revenue rather than throwing up your hands and letting things happen."

Four guilty of Indian bus gang rape 
 
Girl dies after being set on fire during attempted rape 
 
His words immediately incited a social media outcry, and women's rights groups have lashed out at his muddled statements.

Was he advocating changing laws to accommodate unstoppable behaviour? Or arguing laws should stay in place, even if there was little attempt to enforce those laws?

Politician Brinda Karat told The Hindu that it was "sickening that a man, who is in charge of several rape investigations, should use such an analogy. He should be prosecuted for degrading and insulting women."
The CBI later issued a statement on behalf of their embattled director.

"The context of the Director's remarks is important. The Director's point was only that if laws cannot be enforced, it does not mean they should not be there at all."

Director Sinha later told Hindustan Times he "was just making a point, that it is very difficult to enforce a ban on betting, that you can make a law but there are already so many and it is difficult to enforce. Lotteries are already legal. So I said betting could be legalised, it can be taxed. To make this point, I just used a proverb".
"It's a malicious propaganda, it's hitting below the belt, and it's unfair," he added.

But Ranjana Kumari, of the Centre for Social Research, was critical of both his initial statement and his response to the scanda..

"Such a senior police officer who is in a very responsible position and investigates criminal cases should not have passed such a remark," she told Hindustan Times.

"It is not acceptable and he should apologise for it. It has become a habit of people in senior positions to treat the issue of sexual assault lightly."

 news.com.au 13 Nov 2013

Absolute gutter trash that should be removed from office, never to work again in the public eye, only to be thrown into the cesspool of the 'untouchables'.

Would his tune be any different if a female member of his family was raped or even he himself?

This is the sort of scum that prevail in politics.

Australia is a host to many Indian nationals who have a not too dissimilar attitude, especially to Australian / Western women.

Many Indian males are banned from Australian night clubs in Melbourne / Sydney where the number of immigrants is high, as there have been numerous complaints regarding groping, sexual assaults against women.

This is the sort of 'trash' that the Australian politicians allow into the country.

If these people settled in the law makers suburbs and assaulted their children / women, then there most definitely would be a different policy.

Melbourne and Sydney are the dumping grounds for 'criminal' immigrants under the 'refugee' banner

Indian nationals are more racist and discriminatory than the corporate media make out. The corporate media focuses on the alleged white against coloured racism.

By
VM Pandit
Mmcinvestigators.com
Corporate Investigators in India, Intelligence Services in India, Private Detective in India
Delhi 

Mergers & Investments Inquiries India

When Smithfield Foods CEO Larry Pope appears before the Senate Agriculture Committee this week, senators will likely grill him on whether U.S. consumers will be harmed by the proposed $4.7 billion sale to the Chinese firm Shuanghui. Some members of Congress have suggested the deal could hurt the U.S. food supply, even though the meat will be exported.

It seems probable that the deal will go through, but one hurdle is that it must receive approval from the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). As foreign investment rises CFIUS, the federal committee created by President Ford that is barely known outside Beltway and M&A circles, will only become more central to investment by foreign firms. CFIUS’s opaque rules will reach even further into deals from candy companies to technology portals.

For the past few years Mergers & Investments Inquiries India, international interest in American companies has risen dramatically. Dealmakers in China, Russia, Japan, Europe and elsewhere are snatching up U.S. firms, real estate and other assets. In 2013, the U.S. claimed first place on the Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index after dropping to fourth last year. And as the global economy continues to recover, overseas investors will be spending more cash on mergers and acquisitions — from New York to Houston.

CFIUS reviews are also on the rise. According to CFIUS’s Annual Report to Congress, the number of notices increased from 65 in 2009 to 111 in 2011, though this was in part a function of the recession. The number of CFIUS investigations has risen from 6 in 2007 to 40 in 2011. These inquiries into more concerning transactions are supposed to last 45 days, but some go on for months. Asia is particularly sensitive. Since 2007, CFIUS reviews of deals involving Chinese firms have tripled. Reviews of Japanese firms have increased sevenfold.

Despite this boom, CFIUS divulges little guidance or know-how to lawyers and companies navigating the regulatory swamp. No opinion is ever explained. Neither is inaction. And companies can’t challenge a CFIUS decision. That may have been understandable when foreign investments were limited and Cold-War-era concerns were at work. Even though there are still serious national security issues, now that global business currents are inextricably tied to the U.S. economy, the committee’s unwieldy structure and lack of transparency threaten to harm U.S. business interests by delaying deals and holding back investors from bidding, which lowers U.S. investment dollars.

Since the 1950s, the U.S. has conducted national security clearance on acquisitions by foreign firms. CFIUS was created by executive order in 1975, is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and has representatives from 16 executive departments and agencies, including Justice, Energy and Homeland Security. In 2007, it was amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act, which mandated secrecy. The legislation was passed in the wake of a Congressional uproar over whether the Bush administration and, by extension, CFIUS adequately investigated a deal for a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates to buy a management firm that operated six U.S. ports. The reform added layers to the regulatory scheme, including a “critical infrastructure” review and “mitigation agreements” that require parties to restructure aspects of a deal in exchange for clearance. So it didn’t become all that easier for companies to predict how the process will unfold and anticipate hurdles.

Much of the way CFIUS operates is lore, rather than law. The terms that dictate the process are muddied. Some CFIUS lawyers aren’t even sure when a deal might need to be reviewed. A company files for review voluntarily, though the government can compel a review and this is occurring more frequently. Any deal involving “control” of a U.S. firm by a foreign individual can get scrutinized. As a result, “control” doesn’t necessarily touch on national security in a traditional sense. CFIUS’s definition of “critical infrastructure” is broad. It covers military weapons and technology, but also items used in computer software, bioterrorism, natural gas and oil lines, oil reserves and refineries, telecommunication and broadcast facilities, computers and IT products and bridges and ports.

Once a deal is reviewed, the risk analysis involves a three-prong test: Does the acquirer have an intent and capability to threaten U.S. security? Can the assets being acquired be exploited to the detriment of U.S. security? And what consequences would the exploitation of assets being acquired look like? But the threat can be high and the vulnerability minuscule. A candy company might pose a threat, but if the assets can’t be exploited, the risk profile is low.

In fact, CFIUS guidelines can change at a moment’s notice, with little warning. Last year, for example, CFIUS began to broaden its review scope to include a target firm’s proximity to national security facilities. Deals that have been in progress for years or are completed can be scuttled based on location alone. Two years after the Chinese-based Far East Golden Resources Investment Ltd. closed on its acquisition of a majority stake in U.S. mining company Nevada Gold Holdings, CFIUS launched an investigation because of the mining company’s proximity to the Fallon Naval Air Station, even though the company’s only business operations in 2011 was loaning money to the Chinese firm’s parent company. The Chinese firm was forced to divest its interest.

For all the chatter in 2007 to make CFIUS more transparent, it has blocked several high-profile deals with little explanation. In 2010, Chinese firm Huawei Technologies bought the intellectual property of 3Leaf, a software company, for $2 million. It didn’t file notice with CFIUS, which ultimately recommended that President Obama block the transaction. Huawei divested its assets in 3Leaf and tried to continue a dialogue with CFIUS. The House Intelligence Committee released a report urging U.S. businesses not to do business with Huawei, whose equipment was blocked a few months ago from Sprint and Softbank’s acquisition of Clearwire. Few know why.

Another case followed the same trajectory. President Obama ordered Chinese-owned Ralls to divest from four Oregon wind farms it had acquired that were located in airspace near a U.S. Navy training facility. Ralls challenged the order in federal court, which dismissed Ralls’ claims that the president lacked authority to order the company to divest its assets. Ralls still claims it is entitled to a more detailed explanation of the order.

While no one wants the U.S. to be vulnerable to national security attacks, meddling in global business with little guidance is akin to a parent who refuses to explain why television is allowed, but the Internet isn’t. If CFIUS doesn’t reform, its legitimacy — and the future of U.S. business — might be more threatened than the infrastructure it was designed to protect.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/07/08/the-mysterious-agency-that-can-block-a-global-merger/

MMC Investigators India