Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.

Satyam scam kingpin B Ramalinga Raju and his brother B Rama Raju were today sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fined a whopping Rs 5.5 crore after they were convicted by a special court in the Rs 7000-crore accounting fraud that shook the corporate world six
years ago.

Eight others, including former Chief Financial Officer Vadlamani Srinivas, former Price Waterhouse auditors Subramani Gopalakrishnan and T Srinivas, were also sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fined varying amounts up to Rs 25 lakh by Special Judge B V L N Chakravarthi.

The 10 accused were convicted of criminal conspiracy and cheating among other offences in the scam dubbed as the country’s biggest accounting fraud.

Once the poster boy of the ITeS industry, Byrraju Ramalinga Raju (60), and former employee G Ramakrishna were also found guilty under section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of IPC by the judge in the case probed by CBI.

Except Raju’s another brother B Suryanarayana Raju and former internal chief auditor V S Prabhakar Gupta, all the other eight accused were found guilty under IPC sections 467, 468, 471 and 477A, relating to forgery of security, forgery for purpose of cheating and falsification of accounts, according to V Chandrashekhar, Superintendent of Police, CBI Hyderabad Zone.

While the accounting fraud was to the tune of Rs 7,000 crore, it had caused an estimated notional loss of Rs 14,000 crore to investors and unlawful gains of Rs 1900 crore to Raju and others.

Ramalinga Raju and his brother and Satyam’s former Managing Director B Rama Raju were also found guilty under section 409 of IPC relating to criminal breach of trust.

All the ten accused were present in the court, where media was not allowed, when the verdict was pronounced. After pronouncing the order, the judge directed the CBI to take all the accused into custody.

One Response to “Satyam’s Raju and brother get seven yrs jail”

  1. D Thorat

    Satyam fraud is a matter had to be decided on the basis of paper documents. Why should it have taken six long years? Any scrutiny of the reasons for such delays?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *