DBSJeyaraj.com on Facebook

Counsel Requests Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Reconsider Summoning Arjun Aloysius to Testify on Monday .

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page

Legal counsel for Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. (PTL) yesterday requested the Presidential Commission of Inquiry on the controversial bond issuance to reconsider its order to summon former PTL Director Arjun Aloysius to testify before the Commission.

President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne requested the three-member bench to reconsider an order it had given to Aloysius earlier, directing him to testify before the Commission on Monday, 11 September, with an affidavit followed by cross examination.

Aloysius’s counsel, while not objecting to producing an affidavit, will look into the possibility of objecting to giving evidence, and the Commission is expected to formally announce its decision on Monday. Any cross examination will be based on the contents of the affidavit.

Meanwhile, Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunatillake continuing his cross examination of PTL CEO Kasun Palisena, with a re-examination scheduled to take place on Tuesday.

Continuing his argument from Thursday, Gunatillake maintained that selected transactions between PTL, Perpetual Capital Holdings (PCH) and other entities were mere internal book entries that did not reflect on the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) or the LankaSecure System of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL).

PTL had previously produced details pertaining to purchases, challenging figures provided by CBSL concerning the company’s capital gains. Palisena, reiterating his position from the previous day’s proceedings, maintained that the transactions might not have been reflected on the RTGS due to its internal and “netting off” nature. There had been no allocation of security, it transpired.

CBSL had calculated the net income of PTL – its capital gains – but the company had provided documentation to the Commission stating that it had made other purchases. The Deputy Solicitor General, however, was resolute in his position that the transactions in question had been “fictitious”. Palisena disagreed, seeking time for clarification.

Courtesy:Daily FT

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page