In an interview last week with an Indian media outlet, Infosys CFO V. Balakrishnan claimed that Infosys had "not violated any of the rules" relating to U.S. visa policies. Unless others at Infosys have kept Balakrishnan in some sort of protective bubble and kept the company's internal correspondence on the matter successfully hidden from him, he knows better. So he would be well advised to change his story before he's questioned under oath.
Balakrishnan made the comments in response to an Economic Times interviewer's question about Infosys' "two prong battle to fight in the U.S. over the visa row." Referring to the civil case filed by Infosys employee and whistleblower Jay Palmer, and the U.S. government's criminal investigation that was sparked by Palmer's lawsuit, Balakrishnan said this:
We are very clear that we have not violated any of the rules. We believe we have a strong case so the whistle blower case is not a visa case, it is a whistle blower case that will come up for trial somewhere in August. We have to fight it out through the legal process.
The other one is a Department of Justice Investigation we are cooperating with them, we are giving all the data. We believe, we have a strong case and see how it goes.
Now, to be clear, when Balakrishnan said Palmer's case is "not a visa case," in a sense, he's right. Palmer's case is a suit against Infosys for the retaliation and harassment he has endured as a consequence of filing his whistleblower report, which documented the illegal visa activity. So in that sense, Palmer's whistleblower report is a visa case, while his lawsuit is a harassment and retaliation complaint. It's obviously dissembling to try to disassociate Palmer's lawsuit from the visa element, but it is certainly the case that Palmer is suing Infosys for damages related to the harassment and retaliation, not for visa fraud, which is a criminal matter. That's why the federal government stepped in to pursue the criminal case.