Inside EY’s detailed investigation in the NSE case

Chitra Ramakrishna, The former NSE boss has claimed that this yogi was his spiritual mentor. She was guided by the fakir with whom she shared confidential information related to the exchange. In the 70-page report, EY concluded that Yogi’s legend was composed by its creator. Anand SubramaniamThe former chief operating officer, whose appointment initially raised eyebrows, especially since he had little or no experience in the financial sector.

EY submitted its report to the board of NSE on 5th July 2018. Subsequently, the then chairman Ashok Chawla told the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that the NSE was convinced that Subramaniam was impersonating an unnamed yogi.

An executive on condition of anonymity said, “Many drafts of this report were regularly submitted to the then board, as it is not authorized to speak to the media. Once we are done with the email search process We submitted a report to the board. Then after analyzing phone call records and skype profiles, we submitted another draft. Post looking at bank records, yet another. Submitted in July 2018. Several draft reports were put together as part of the final report,” the executive added.

EY check was started by the NSE board in September 2016.

So far, the contents of the EY report, which scanned the desktops of both Ramakrishna and Subramaniam, and went to the emails of over 3,000 current and former employees of the NSE, have appeared in SEBI’s 190-page order issued this year. , nor made public. Significantly, a little more than half of this EY report consists of documents including bank statements, phone records, snapshots of Word and Excel files and geotagged images to prove the location of the unidentified person.

And yet, SEBI, in its order, dismissed the findings of the EY team, saying that the identity of the unnamed Yogi was inconclusive.

Mint studied the contents of the 44-month-old report and also spoke to two officials who are directly familiar with the report’s preparation to tie the narrative together. This raises a pertinent question: Why has SEBI not found merit in any of the EY’s arguments?

database match

The EY’s conclusion was based on five key points – none of which find any mention in the February 11 order by SEBI.

First, EY searched rigyajursama@outlook.com on all emails available on the NSE exchange server between January 2000 and May 2018 – Himalayan Yogis Headed ‘Rigyajursama’. rigyajursama@outlook.com is Yogi’s email id.

Barring two, all communications from this email ID were with three NSE personnel – Chitra Ramakrishna, Anand Subramaniam and Sunita Anand, the report said.

Sunita is Anand Subramaniam’s wife and was also an employee of NSE.

Within an enterprise like NSE, an email exchange server is the repository of all official email. Even if an employee deletes an email from their local machine, a copy of the communication sits within code running in souped-up computer machines, typically called server rooms.

Ramakrishna told SEBI that the Himalayan yogi was his spiritual north star for two decades. However, EY’s email analysis of more than 18 years showed that rigyajursama@outlook.com only appeared in the exchange’s database between 2013 and 2016.

Here, it is important to mention that Subramaniam was initially appointed by Ramakrishna as an advisor in April 2013 and was later promoted to the role of chief operating officer two years later. The board asked Ramakrishna to oust him on 21 October 2016.

“This exercise of categorizing emails and performing disk imaging service of all current and former employees was perhaps the longest – the exercise took about four months to complete,” said the second executive mint.

The forensic team received a total of 569 emails containing rigyajursama@outlook.com between October 2013 and December 2016. Bulk emails were generated in 2015 (39%) and 2016 (48%).

skype trail

Another clue came from analyzing Subramaniam’s desktop provided by NSE. Internet calling service provider Skype’s account of Subramaniam was linked to rigyajursama@outlook.com and Subramaniam’s mobile number.

“The Skype account with the user profile name ‘sironmani.10’ was linked to the email id rigyajursama@outlook.com and Subramaniam’s mobile number,” the EY report said. Ramakrishna sometimes referred to the yogi as “Sironmani”.

Subramaniam’s mobile number was used by the consultants to verify access to his Skype account.

Mint learned that the mobile number mentioned above was registered in the name of an NSE employee Jamal Sharif, but was assigned to Subramaniam by the exchange.

Mint could not reach Sharif.

clue from timestamp

Further evidence to point fingers at Subramaniam came from Microsoft Word and Excel files used as attachments by the spiritual yogi when sending emails to Ramakrishna. Microsoft Word and Excel documents were created and modified on Subramaniam’s desktop provided to him by NSE. They were sent to Ramakrishna from the email id rigyajursama@outlook.com.

During its investigation, EY found that 17 emails sent to both Ramakrishna and Sunita Anand from the email ID rigyajursama@outlook.com contained at least one Word file or Excel file attachment. Nine contained a Word or Excel attachment, while eight emails contained images as attached files. Scrutinizing nine Microsoft Word and Excel documents, the consultants found that the author of these documents was Subramaniam Anand.

In the end, the timestamps (a sequence of information that identifies the occurrence of an event) of these nine Word and Excel file attachments showed that there was a difference of no more than two minutes—the time between when the files worked on the desktop. and when she was emailed to Ramakrishna and Sunita Anand.

“This timestamp left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he (Subramaniam) was actually impersonating an unidentified executive,” said another executive.

Of the eight images sent as attachments, two emails were geotagged and found close to Subramaniam’s residence in Chennai by EY officials. It was concluded that both the geotagged emails of Subramaniam and Himalayan Yogi were sent within 100 meters of Subramaniam’s residence in Teynampet, Chennai, said the first executive cited above.

The consultants also geotagged some other images sent to Ramakrishna as attachments as part of the official email sent by Subramaniam (when he was in Chennai).

holiday

EY advisors stumbled upon a particular banking transaction that fueled their suspicions about Subramaniam’s impersonation as Yogi.

On 1 December 2015, rigyajursama@outlook.com emailed Subramaniam, saying: “Kanchan, your leave has been approved and booked by ME at Umaid Bhawan (Jodhpur, Rajasthan). According to EY, the fakir has Addressed Subramaniam as ‘Kanchan’ This email was also copied to Subramaniam’s personal email id (aanand_s@hotmail.com).

Subramaniam’s bank accounts show that he transacted on November 27, 2015 2,37,984 Towards Umaid Bhawan Palace.

Simply put, it appears that Subramaniam was using another fake email ID to write himself, giving the impression that there was actually a third person.

Finally, the advisors found the language used by Subramaniam in some of his official emails was similar to that used in emails sent from rigyajursama@outlook.com.

During investigation, an old email revealed that there were people outside NSE who addressed Subramaniam as “God”.

One of Subramaniam’s official emails to Ramakrishna read: “Soma, I came, I discussed, and I walked like a god. Very soon, Kanchan will come in my line to fit your second line of shoes. Blessings. “. Sometimes, Ramakrishna was referred to as ‘Soma’ in emails.

The above email is similar to the language used in the mail received from rigyajursama@outlook.com.

Yet another bizarre email was from an unidentified person, using the email address t.subreshrer@gmail.com. On 24 November 2009, the man wrote on Subramaniam’s personal email id: “Dear God: When I come to Chennai, I will definitely bring the baby and come with my husband to personally seek your blessings from you”.

The next day on November 25, Subramaniam forwarded the email to his wife Sunita.

In addition to the above, EY Advisors also analyzed Ramakrishna’s cell phone records for the period between July 2015 and December 2016. Two cell phones of Subramaniam, including the official number, were analyzed for the period July 2016-September 2016. During this period the two spoke to each other most of the times.

SEBI’s stand

The mint could not independently ascertain whether the above points are sufficient to confirm Subramaniam’s impersonation of a Himalayan yogi. However, SEBI did not find merit in addressing any of the issues raised while announcing its order earlier this month.

“The EY report, at best, suggests that the unidentified person was also famous and close to the notice number. 6 (Subramaniam) but makes no conclusive conclusion that notice no. 6 was actually an unidentified person who used the email id rigyajursama@outlook.com,” wrote Sebi whole-time director Anant Baruah in the February 11 order.

SEBI appears to be annoyed by EY advisors not scanning the laptops of Subramaniam or Ramakrishna (they were not available for forensic imaging as they were disposed of as e-waste). However, the regulator’s order is silent on the details of Subramaniam’s official desktop.

Two Sebi officials who spoke to Mint said one of the reasons why the market regulator did not find the EY report conclusive was that Subramaniam’s ID and Rigyajursama’s ID had the same Internet Protocol (IP).

“If SEBI had believed the NSE version, we in turn would have been questioned – why did we accept non-conclusive evidence? The report does not show that Subramaniam was using this email id (of Rigyajursama). We have cross-examined everyone along with the EY report. SEBI has reached the order only after that.”

Some NSE officials are not happy with the SEBI order.

“Let us say for a moment that EY completely thwarted the investigation and there is no conclusive evidence. Let us also agree that the NSE Board wanted to close the matter expeditiously, and hence EY’s Agreed with the findings. But surprisingly, none of these points are mentioned in the SEBI order. What is the justification for rejecting SEBI’s finding that Subramaniam and the mysterious person are not the same person? An executive at NSE asked.

Last week, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Subramaniam from his residence in Chennai. Mint reported on February 26 that the CBI may have determined that the faceless Yogi was none other than Subramaniam.

The CBI is also questioning former vice-chairman of the board of NSE Ramakrishna and Ravi Narayan.

An email sent to EY seeking comment remained unanswered. A text message sent to Ramakrishna also remained unanswered. Subramaniam could not be contacted as he is in jail and is being questioned by the federal investigative agencies. Nevertheless, Mint sent a text message to his registered mobile number. Clarifications sought from NSE and SEBI also remained unanswered.

Jayshree P. Upadhyay in Mumbai contributed to this story.