Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation of two friends D and T. D owns a business and T wants to join. D and T decide to open a branch office.
D tells T that he needs no money for the branch office because he has lined up an investor. Now imagine that the money set aside for the branch office by the investor is $25,000.
Since T has taken no money from D there is no particular need for him to report income and expense to T other than out of professional courtesy. That’s where things get tricky. One day D sends an email to T explaining the following. Disregard the fractured language.
The most curious aspect of this message is when D tells T “Since I am bringing the $2500 for the office so you will then owe me $18500 instead of $16000 previously..” If T invested no money in the branch office and D managed everything from the investment of 25 grand, why does T owe D anything at all? Equally, if T needs no fund from D, why does D’s debt jump up by $2500. Numbers do not seem to add up.
What I have called a hypothetical situation is actually real and taken from the ongoing trial of Chicago businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana, accused of supporting terrorism in the November, 2008 attacks on Mumbai. David Coleman Headley, Rana’s childhood, friend, set up an immigration services office in Mumbai ostensibly with $25000 provided by Major Iqbal, a shadowy figure from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The apparent accounting error was gleefully pointed out by Rana’s attorney Charles Swift as he began to cross exam Headley in a Chicago federal court yesterday. Headley, who had during the last three days of his testimony been a picture of precision in his replies to the prosecution as their witness, seemed to fumble explaining the contradiction how Rana’s debt went up in connection with an office he had invested no money in.
As a B grade Hindi movie lawyer, with his coat bursting at its seams around his girth and a tie askew, would say, “Yeh point note kiya jay, me lord. (A point to be noted, me lord).”
