' Not Aware Of Tax Benefits in Cayman Islands': Vivek Doval Tells Court In Caravan Defamation Case

Vivek Doval's cross-examination continued today at Rouse Avenue Court where he was subjected to multiple questions by Mr Bhavook Chauhan, counsel for Caravan journalist Kaushal Shroff. Vivek Doval has accused Jairam Ramesh and Kaushal Shroff for criminally defaming his professional reputation in Indian markets by insinuating money laundering accusations against his GNY Asia Fund.

Mr Chauhan started his cross-examination by asking Mr Doval about his expertise and experience in the field of fund management and investments. Through his series of questions, Mr Chauhan wanted to establish the following facts:

1. Mr Doval doesn't enjoy considerable reputation in Indian markets

2. He was aware of the fact that the Cayman Islands does not levy any income tax, corporate tax and tax on capital gains

3. People and companies involved in GNY Asia Fund have been named in Paradise Papers and Mr Doval was aware of it

4. Mr Doval was aware of the content of the report titled 'Indian Black Money Abroad in Secret Banks and Tax Havens' which was authored by his own father

Mr Doval denied all the above prepositions by answering the following:

1. He has not read the report and he has not given any interview to any media house about the content of the report

2. He's not aware about the tax laws of Cayman Islands. The decision to register GNY Asia Fund in the said Islands was motivated by the fact the majority of funds are registered there and not because of the tax laws.

3. He's not aware of the fact that the company which shares its registered office with GNY Asia Fund is named in Paradise Papers

4. He said that it's a common practice both in the UK and in the Cayman Islands for small businesses to have their accountant's/lawyer's offices registered as their official address.

5. He has proven expertise in the field of fund management but not in taxation.

The court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal accepted the objection of the Prosecution when Mr Chauhan kept on asking questions from the content of the aforementioned report. 'He has said he has not read the report. He has also not the author of the said report. Why are you asking this question then', asked the ACMM.