It may be sheer coincidence. But the substantive issue raised by it simply hits the bull’s eye. In the end it is a tribute to the foresight and approach of the DIFC regulators, who clearly appear to be on top of the issues they should be concerned with.
No more suspense: the reference is to a consultation paper issued by the Dubai Financial Services Authority, the agency that regulates DIFC companies, on how to effectively deal with Politically Exposed People (PEP) in the application of laws against money laundering and other irregularities.
To suggest that the move has anything to do with recent developments in India, in which certain high-profile individuals close to the ruling party leadership have been accused of corruption, would be to stretch things too far. At the same time, the context makes it stunningly interesting in terms of the objectives and scope of the DIFC move. The most interesting aspect of all is that the Indian case provides probably the best illustration of what the term Politically Exposed People means.
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the issue, controversy has been raging in India over alleged favours granted to ruling party chief Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra by leading real estate development firm DLF in return for political backing for its business deals. The case has generated much heat and in response the ruling party functionaries, including Cabinet ministers, have put up a spirited defence of Vadra on the pretext that dealings between a private individual and a company cannot be open to public scrutiny.