Latest news with #Buch
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NHS surgeon who compared Islam to Nazism struck off
An NHS surgeon, who claimed he had been discriminated against at work, has been struck off for anti-Islamic posts comparing the religion to Nazism. Dr Keyur Buch also shared a post on X that claimed '99.8 per cent of terrorists across the world are Muslims'. The surgeon, currently based in Ahmedabad, India, was initially suspended from the register for just four months over the 'racially and religiously hostile' posts. A review panel has now found that the surgeon had 'persistently failed' to show insight into his actions and decided to strike Dr Buch from the General Medical Council (GMC) register. The medical practitioners tribunal reviewing his case heard that Dr Buch qualified in India in 1987 before moving to the UK in 1995. He left the country in 2016 but has remained on the GMC register. In July 2022 he gave an interview to a UK-based Asian newspaper alleging that a colleague had once told him he would 'never hire a brown person' and that the NHS was 'institutionally racist'. He was first reported for his 'hostile' posts in September 2022 by a fellow doctor and two members of the public, shortly after they were published. Dr Buch was initially suspended for four months following a hearing in 2023. The suspension was then extended by a further 12 months in April 2024. The review panel has now decided to strike Dr Buch off entirely, saying: 'A sanction of erasure was the only sanction that would address Dr Buch's persistent failure to demonstrate insight. 'The tribunal was satisfied that there was a lack of meaningful engagement from Dr Buch, and he had failed to demonstrate adequate development of insight or any remediation in the 16 months since he was suspended.' The 2023 hearing was told that the medical professional had made several inappropriate posts on an X account under the name 'Dr Keyur Buch | Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon'. In one of his posts he said: 'Just like Nazism and Communism, I5lam is a supremacist violent cult that needs to be got rid of because it harms Mu5lims and nonMus1ims alike.' Dr Buch also used the hashtag '#IslamIsTheProblem', linked 'Muslim schools' with 'Islamic terrorists' and referred to the Prophet Muhammad as 'MohMad'. In another post the surgeon claimed there was an 'invasion' of Pakistani Muslims on Hindus in the UK. Screenshots of his social media posts were sent to the GMC by a doctor and two members of the public who said they 'incited hate towards Muslims'. Dr Buch told the tribunal he 'acknowledged the upset and hurt caused' by his posts and claimed they were 'provoked' by the Leicester riots taking place at the time. He said the unrest between British Muslims and Hindus in the Midlands city, sparked by a cricket match, was 'personal' because a temple he used to visit in Leicester was attacked. He also said his account had been 'hacked' and the posts were written by others. The 2023 panel found the 'offensive nature' of the surgeon's statements had 'undermined' the integrity of doctors. They suggested he could assist future reviews by showing that he had taken steps to 'better understand' equality and diversity. The panel said: 'The offensive nature of Dr Buch's social media posts, irrespective of whether he felt at the time that they were provoked by emotive national events, were made to a significant audience and could be directly linked to his profession as an orthopaedic surgeon. 'Doctors, in all aspects of their lives, are expected to act with integrity to ensure that public trust in the medical profession is maintained. 'Dr Buch's actions undermined that.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
NDTV
29-05-2025
- Business
- NDTV
'Political Reasons': Lokpal Rips Into Complainants In Madhabi Puri Buch Case
New Delhi: Dismissing all allegations against former SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, the Lokpal had also pulled up the complainants for approaching it with "unclean hands" and for purely political reasons. The anti-corruption body also warned that the complainants' conduct trivialised the process and amounted to "vexatious proceedings", which is potentially punishable under Section 46 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The complaints had been filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur. In its 116-page order dismissing the complaints against the former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) chief, the Lokpal said they were based "more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences... so as to direct an investigation." Warning that such conduct trivialised the process, the Lokpal said it amounted to vexatious proceedings which could be punishable. Section 46 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act provides for the prosecution of individuals who file false or frivolous complaints, with penalties including imprisonment of up to a year and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. Ms Buch had been accused of having investments linked to the Adani Group, quid pro quo disguised as consultancy fees and rental income, undue gains from ICICI Bank employee stock options and a "pretence of recusal" from certain cases. The Lokpal noted that the complaints, which were filed last year, were essentially based on the report "by a known short seller trader (Hindenburg Research) whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of Companies". The Lokpal order said, "The effectiveness of the investigations and action taken by SEBI against the Adani Group of companies has commended to the Supreme Court. That cannot be reopened directly or indirectly..." It also said that the Hindenburg report by itself cannot be made the sole basis to escalate action against Ms Buch. "The complainant(s) being conscious of this position advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report but the analysis of the allegations by us, ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," it noted. "The complainant (s) by making such unverified and flimsy or fragile allegations, only to sensationalise or so to say politicise the matter, has inevitably trivialised the process before the Lokpal," the anti-corruption body added. 'Generating Publicity' The Lokpal also expressed concern over the decision of one complainant decision to publicise the filing of the complaint on social media. This, the order noted, was in clear breach of the confidentiality requirements enshrined in the Lokpal Act and showed that the complaints were filed not with a bona fide intention of seeking justice, but rather to generate publicity. It was noted that when the media campaign fizzled out due to a lack of interest, the complainants turned to the Lokpal in what appeared to be an attempt to 'keep the issue alive'.
Mint
29-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Why Lokpal cleared former Sebi chief Buch of corruption charges?
Anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal on Wednesday dismissed three complaints against former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Madhabi Puri Buch that were largely based on a 2024 report by Hindenburg Research. The Lokpal said it found no merit in the allegations of corruption and termed the complaints 'vexatious" and based on "presumptions". The ombudsman's order said there was no credible evidence of wrongdoing or conflict of interest by Buch or her husband. Mint explains the allegations, what the independent statutory body found, and what it means for future cases. What were the allegations against former Sebi chief Buch? The complaints were filed between August and October 2024 by different individuals, including Trinamool Congress parliamentarian Mahua Moitra. All three cited a 10 August 2024 Hindenburg Reasearch report that questioned Sebi's actions under Buch's tenure. Complainants alleged Buch failed to disclose a ₹5 crore investment in a fund linked to the Adani Group, received consultancy and rental income from entities under Sebi scrutiny, and profited from ICICI Bank employee stock ownership (Esops) while the bank faced regulatory action. Also Read | Madhabi Puri Buch's Sebi tenure: A legacy of reform, controversy, and resistance What did the Lokpal find and what did it note in its order? The Lokpal dismissed all allegations, finding no prima facie evidence of an 'offence of corruption" under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It noted that Buch and her husband had invested in Global Dynamic Opportunities Fund (GDOF) in 2015, two years before she joined Sebi. Their investment was unrelated to Adani-linked sub-funds and was fully redeemed in 2018, before Sebi's Adani investigation began in 2020. The Supreme Court had already found Sebi's Adani probe to be fair and comprehensive. The Lokpal also rejected allegations of document redaction, calling the claim an indirect challenge to the apex court's findings. On the charge of conflict of interest regarding Mahindra Group, the Lokpal noted that Buch had recused herself from matters relating to the group in 2019. Her husband, Dhaval Buch, received ₹4.78 crore in consultancy fees from Mahindra between 2019 and 2021, but the Lokpal found no link between this and regulatory decisions, which were handled by others at Sebi. Similar charges were raised around Blackstone Inc. and its Reit licences. However, the Lokpal observed that Blackstone's registrations predated Buch's tenure as chairperson, and she had no involvement in subsequent approvals. The Lokpal ruled that the ₹16.8 crore Buch earned from ICICI Bank Esops after joining Sebi was part of her past service package. There was no evidence linking these to any favourable treatment by Sebi, which had acted through independent committees in all ICICI-related matters. The Lokpal found the complaints to be speculative, and lacking verifiable facts. 'The complaints were essentially founded on the Hindenburg report of 2024, by a known short seller trader whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of companies. That report, by itself, cannot be made the sole basis to escalate action against Buch," the order said. 'The allegations in the complaints are more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences to direct an investigation." What does this mean for Sebi? The order effectively clears Buch of corruption allegations linked to the second Hindenburg report. Legal experts say the complaints nevertheless pushed Sebi's internal governance under greater scrutiny. 'Public confidence is more a matter of perception than a regulatory issue. Clean chit or no clean chit, the confidence of public has been taken care of with the complaint and necessary actions have already been invoked by the current regime," said Aditya Bhansali, founding partner at Mindspright Legal. Following Buch's departure, Sebi set up a high-level committee under new chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey to overhaul its conflict-of-interest framework. The committee, which first met on 16 May, is evaluating public disclosure norms for board members' commercial interests, trading restrictions, recusal procedures, and even an ombudsman mechanism. Bhansali noted that Sebi's earlier code of conduct was inadequate for the Buch-era controversies. 'It is not the order," he said, 'but the complaint filed by the complainants that sparked the necessity of implementation of the rules or code in order to avoid the conflict of interest." Also Read: After Madhabi Puri Buch, will Sebi have a bureaucrat at its helm? Can the Lokpal's order be challenged? While the Lokpal Act provides no direct appeal mechanism, parties may approach the Supreme Court or a high court under writ jurisdiction. 'Courts are generally cautious in interfering with findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the Lokpal," said Hardeep Sachdeva, senior partner at AZB & Partners. 'A challenge would typically have to demonstrate that the order was perverse or manifestly arbitrary; it violates principles of natural justice, or it contains certain significant procedural irregularities." Has Lokpal acted against senior officials before? Yes. In 2021, the Lokpal ordered a probe into corruption charges against the then director general of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, leading to a CBI case. It also passed an order against a high court judge over alleged undue influence. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order, raising concerns over the Lokpal's interpretation of its jurisdiction in such cases. ===================== Anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal on Wednesday dismissed three complaints against former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Madhabi Puri Buch, finding no merit in allegations of corruption. The complaints were largely based on a 2024 report by Hindenburg Research. The Lokpal called the complaints 'vexatious" and 'based on presumptions", finding no credible evidence of wrongdoing or conflict of interest by Buch or her husband, in the order of May 28. Mint breaks down the allegations, why the Lokpal found them baseless and whether this order can be challenged and how the Lokpal, an independent statutory body, has looked at past high-profile complaints. What were the complaints about? The complaints were filed between August and October 2024 by different individuals, including MP Mahua Moitra. All three cited a 10 August 2024 Hindenburg report that questioned Sebi's actions under Buch's tenure. Complainants alleged Buch failed to disclose a ₹5 crore investment in a fund linked to Adani Group, received consultancy and rental income from entities under Sebi scrutiny, and profited from ICICI Bank ESOPs while the bank faced regulatory action. What did the Lokpal find? The Lokpal dismissed all allegations, finding no prima facie evidence of an 'offence of corruption" under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It noted that Buch and her husband had invested in Global Dynamic Opportunities Fund (GDOF) in 2015, two years before she joined Sebi. Their investment was unrelated to Adani-linked sub-funds and was fully redeemed in 2018—before Sebi's Adani investigation began in 2020. The Supreme Court had already found Sebi's Adani probe to be fair and comprehensive. The Lokpal also rejected allegations of document redaction, calling the claim an indirect challenge to the apex court's findings. On the charge of conflict of interest regarding Mahindra Group, the Lokpal noted that Buch had recused herself from matters relating to the group in 2019. Her husband, Dhaval Buch, received ₹4.78 crore in consultancy fees from Mahindra between 2019–2021, but the Lokpal found no link between this and regulatory decisions, which were handled by others at Sebi. Similar charges were raised around Blackstone Inc. and its REIT licences. However, the Lokpal observed that Blackstone's registrations predated Buch's tenure as chairperson and she had no involvement in subsequent approvals. As for the ₹16.8 crore Buch earned from ICICI Bank ESOPs after joining Sebi, the Lokpal ruled these were part of her past service package. There was no evidence linking these to any favourable treatment by Sebi, which had acted through independent committees in all ICICI-related matters. What is the Lokpal's final word? The Lokpal found the complaints to be speculative, lacking verifiable facts. 'The complaints were essentially founded on the Hindenburg report of 2024, by a known short seller trader whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of companies. That report, by itself, cannot be made the sole basis to escalate action against Buch," the order said. It added, 'The allegations in the complaints are more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences to direct an investigation." What does this mean? The order effectively clears Buch of corruption allegations linked to the second Hindenburg report. Legal experts say the complaints nevertheless pushed Sebi's internal governance under greater scrutiny. 'Public confidence is more a matter of perception than a regulatory issue. Clean chit or no clean chit, the confidence of public has been taken care of with the complaint and necessary actions have already been invoked by the current regime," said Aditya Bhansali, founding partner at Mindspright Legal. Following Buch's departure, Sebi set up a high-level committee under new chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey to overhaul its conflict-of-interest framework. The committee, which first met on 16 May, is evaluating public disclosure norms for board members' commercial interests, trading restrictions, recusal procedures, and even an ombudsman mechanism. Bhansali noted that Sebi's earlier code of conduct was inadequate for the Buch-era controversies. 'It is not the order," he said, 'but the complaint filed by the complainants that sparked the necessity of implementation of the rules or code in order to avoid the conflict of interest." Can the Lokpal's order be challenged? While the Lokpal Act provides no direct appeal mechanism, parties may approach the Supreme Court or a High Court under writ jurisdiction. 'Courts are generally cautious in interfering with findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the Lokpal," said Hardeep Sachdeva, senior partner at AZB & Partners. 'A challenge would typically have to demonstrate that the order was perverse or manifestly arbitrary; it violates principles of natural justice, or it contains certain significant procedural irregularities." Has Lokpal acted against senior officials before? Yes. In 2021, the Lokpal ordered a probe into corruption charges against the then DG of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, leading to a CBI case. It also passed an order against a High Court judge over alleged undue influence. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order, raising concerns over the Lokpal's interpretation of its jurisdiction in such cases.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Lokpal clears Buch of conflict of interest allegations based on Hindenburg report
Mumbai: The Lokpal on Wednesday disposed of complaints alleging impropriety and conflict of interest against former Sebi chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch based on a report by US-based short seller Hindenburg Research. The anti-corruption ombudsman said the allegations against Buch are on "'presumptions and assumptions' and not supported by any verifiable material" to direct an investigation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025년 가장 멋진 RPG 게임을 지금 정복하세요 레이드 섀도우 레전드 Undo The six- member bench headed by Lokpal chairperson Justice AM Khanwilkar, while disposing of three complaints by different complainants including TMC MP Mahua Moitra, said the allegations are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Allegations of conflict of interest and financial misconduct were levelled against Buch by Hindenburg Research and the Congress party. Hindenburg alleged that Buch and her husband had investments in offshore funds controlled by Vinod Adani, the brother of Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, which were allegedly used for manipulating funds and inflating stock prices of the group's listed entities in India. Live Events "In that, the named RPS (Madhabi Puri Buch) had already redeemed the investments from the fund much before the investigations" into the allegation of manipulations of stocks against Adani Group of. companies had begun by Sebi; and it is evident from investigations by Sebi that the GDOF Cell 90, or IPE Plus Fund, in which the RPS and her husband had invested, had not made investments through EIFF and EMRF in any Adani Group shares," the order said. "In any case the RPS (Buch) and her husband were not in control of the decision of the fund to make investments. They were only passive investors in the fund, which they had already redeemed in 2018," the order said. The Congress party accused Buch of trading in listed securities, selling employee stock options from her previous employer ICICI Bank during her term at Sebi, and making money through her advisory firm that offered consultancy services to listed companies, breaching the regulator's conflict of interest policy.
Economic Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Lokpal clears Buch of conflict of interest allegations based on Hindenburg report
The Congress party accused Buch of trading in listed securities, selling employee stock options from her previous employer ICICI Bank during her term at Sebi, and making money through her advisory firm that offered consultancy services to listed companies, breaching the regulator's conflict of interest policy. The Lokpal dismissed complaints against former Sebi chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, which were based on a Hindenburg Research report, citing a lack of verifiable material. Allegations of impropriety and conflict of interest, including investments in offshore funds linked to Vinod Adani, were deemed untenable and unsubstantiated. The Lokpal emphasized that Buch had redeemed the investments before the Sebi investigation began. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: The Lokpal on Wednesday disposed of complaints alleging impropriety and conflict of interest against former Sebi chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch based on a report by US-based short seller Hindenburg anti-corruption ombudsman said the allegations against Buch are on "'presumptions and assumptions' and not supported by any verifiable material" to direct an six- member bench headed by Lokpal chairperson Justice AM Khanwilkar, while disposing of three complaints by different complainants including TMC MP Mahua Moitra, said the allegations are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on of conflict of interest and financial misconduct were levelled against Buch by Hindenburg Research and the Congress alleged that Buch and her husband had investments in offshore funds controlled by Vinod Adani, the brother of Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, which were allegedly used for manipulating funds and inflating stock prices of the group's listed entities in India."In that, the named RPS (Madhabi Puri Buch) had already redeemed the investments from the fund much before the investigations" into the allegation of manipulations of stocks against Adani Group of. companies had begun by Sebi; and it is evident from investigations by Sebi that the GDOF Cell 90, or IPE Plus Fund, in which the RPS and her husband had invested, had not made investments through EIFF and EMRF in any Adani Group shares," the order said."In any case the RPS (Buch) and her husband were not in control of the decision of the fund to make investments. They were only passive investors in the fund, which they had already redeemed in 2018," the order Congress party accused Buch of trading in listed securities, selling employee stock options from her previous employer ICICI Bank during her term at Sebi, and making money through her advisory firm that offered consultancy services to listed companies, breaching the regulator's conflict of interest policy.
