Stranger Than Fiction: Infosys Seeks More U.S. Government Business

Don Tennant

Despite its acknowledgement last week that some of its employees, along with the company itself, are targets of the federal government's criminal investigation of alleged visa fraud, Infosys is still proclaiming that it is "increasingly bidding for work" with U.S. government agencies.


As I noted in last week's post, "Infosys Warns of Adverse Consequences of Feds' Criminal Investigation," Infosys made that acknowledgement in a routine Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It's noteworthy that in the same document, Infosys stated that it's stepping up its efforts to solicit contracts to supply IT services to the federal government, and warned that there is an inherent risk in such contracts that its employees could violate U.S. anti-corruption regulations.


While it's very true that this is the type of standard risk warning that all public companies provide in SEC filings of this kind, the irony in this case is striking. In a post back in July, "Infosys Attacks Whistleblower in Wake of Senate Testimony," I referred to a report that Infosys Public Services (IPS), the Infosys arm that targets state and federal government business, was taking steps to ramp up its operations in the United States. I suggested that Infosys had earned the chutzpah award of the year:

At a time when the U.S. government is conducting a multi-agency criminal investigation of Infosys stemming from [Infosys employee and whistleblower Jay] Palmer's allegations, Infosys is making a concerted effort to increase its presence in the government sector in the United States, and by extension, to get more money from U.S. taxpayers.

Now, six months later, one might have expected that given the circumstances of having to publicly acknowledge that the company and some of its employees are targets of the federal government's criminal investigation, Infosys would at the very least put its efforts to get more business from the U.S. government on hold. Instead, in that same 6-K filing, Infosys stated that it is "increasingly bidding for work with governments and governmental agencies, both within and outside the United States." One of the particular risks it listed in that context would be amusing, were it not for the seriousness of the problems that Infosys is currently facing:

Government contracts are often subject to more extensive scrutiny and publicity than other contracts. Any negative publicity related to such contracts, regardless of the accuracy of such publicity, may adversely affect our business or reputation.

It was at that point in the document that Infosys went on to warn of the risk that U.S. anti-corruption regulations could be violated:

In addition, we operate in jurisdictions in which local business practices may be inconsistent with international regulatory requirements, including anti-corruption and anti-bribery regulations prescribed under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), and the Bribery Act 2010 (U.K.), which, among other things, prohibits giving or offering to give anything of value with the intent to influence the awarding of government contracts. Although we believe that we have adequate policies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure legal and regulatory compliance with the FCPA, the Bribery Act 2010 and other similar regulations, it is possible that some of our employees, subcontractors, agents or partners may violate any such legal and regulatory requirements, which may expose us to criminal or civil enforcement actions, including penalties and suspension or disqualification from U.S. federal procurement contracting. If we fail to comply with legal and regulatory requirements, our business and reputation may be harmed.

Again, it needs to be fully understood that including generic warnings of this type is standard practice in public companies' filings with the SEC. That said, what's different in this case are the incriminating circumstances and the timing of the filing of this particular document. In standard practice, the risks that companies list in these documents are purely hypothetical. The tragedy here is that the actions of the Infosys employees who are among the targets of the U.S. government's criminal investigation have swept this filing from the realm of the hypothetical to the realm of reality.

Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Jan 30, 2012 1:03 AM ITJob ITJob  says:

We can give chutzpah award of the year to Don for repeated nuisance articles related to Infosys.

With this article one thing is for sure no one is going to take Don's article about Infosys serious...this is low point for Don as a blogger/writer/reporter.

If a company should not go after business of Government just because of some investigation is going on is...really ridiculous argument. It is just an investigation not a judgement if you can't differentiate then it is everyone's best interest that you stop writing about it. If what you are saying is right then I don't think most of the lawmakers sitting in the office are eligible to sit. Infosys fraud (if it is) affects IT industry then wrong person sitting in office will/is affecting entire country.

If you are reporter/writer you should not take side until judgement is passed and it is expected that no reporter/writer pass their own judgement. Lets all get correct and unbiased information which is fair expectation from us.

Jan 30, 2012 1:08 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to George A

I have a vendetta against no one, and I don't appreciate the remark. This is a story that warrants extensive coverage, and I assure you I intend to cover it accordingly. With respect to Infosys hiring people here, in my opinion it's extremely unfortunate that anyone here would be lured into accepting a job with Infosys. I can tell you that there are employees in Infosys' HR operations in Plano, Texas, who would dearly love to have a do-over. If they could, they'd never accept the job. Unemployment never looked so good.

Jan 30, 2012 2:08 AM jake_leone jake_leone  says:

The InfoSys case is a prime example of how the 1% are profiting from the 99%.

If there is a single case of this excess that exemplifies it, this is the one.

The range of this abuse is enormous, spanning continents, basically the exportation of criminal behavior into the United States.

In this case, InfoSys has brought in people to work in highly desirable IT jobs at sub-minimum wage.  Billing the customer, as if they were paying these people market wages, and stuffing down a huge profit.

And not paying any taxes, on the these wages, thus stuffing down even more profit, at the expense of all law abiding tax payers.  And displacing U.S. Citizens from the ability to compete for jobs on U.S. soil, while at the same time using the Visa system for (90+%) of their engineering needs.

Then coercing low-level employees to lie on federal forms about this fraud, to cover it up.  Lies that could earn people decades of jail-time.  Attempting to coerce low-level employees to with hold vital information from federal agents, doing a criminal investigation.  Attempting to silence such employees with lies and threats of legal action.

It's such a huge abuse of the system that we have to ask ourselves can we allow a company that appears to function like an organized criminal institution do business with our government?  Are we that stupid?

Frankly, any company that has to tell it's stock holders that anti-bribery law could affect its bottom-line, is not a company that should be doing business with the U.S. Federal government.

Jan 30, 2012 2:09 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to ITJob

First, this is a blog. The purpose of this blog is to serve as a forum in which opinions can be expressed -- my opinions, the opinions of the people I choose to interview, and the opinions of the people who choose to comment. What you read here are not "articles." They are blog posts. Nothing more, nothing less. So do not make false accusations based on a false premise.

Second, if you saw a person rob a bank, you wouldn't need to wait for the person to be convicted in court to know he did it. You saw it with your own eyes. I have seen the proof of Infosys' fraud and illegal retaliatory behavior with my own eyes. I am not passing my own judgment. I am conveying facts that I know to be true.

Finally, if you consider this blog to be a nuisance, I strongly suggest you do yourself a favor and stop reading it. There are plenty of other things to read. This blog is required reading for no one.

Jan 30, 2012 3:06 AM ITJob ITJob  says: in response to Don Tennant

Don hope you know "have one's cake and eat it" is bad idea. One hand you wanted to be personal blogger who has no limits or restrictions on the other hand you want to peek into materials which is under investigation in the name of reporter/journalist.

If you are personal blogger then you don't have any rights to peak into companies confidential matters (other than the plaintiff's attorney).

If you are a reporter/journalist then you got to follow some ethics it comes with.

Please pick one and stand for it don't try both which by itself sounds awful.

By the way if you don't want anyone to comment about your blog (nice or harsh way) then better not to post it in the web.

Jan 30, 2012 3:19 AM  says: in response to jake_leone

Well 1% profiting from 99% is called capitalism. Joining the 1% is the American dream. The 1% are rewarded for being able to turn their labor and intellectual property and capital by marshalling the employ of the remaining 99% and there by providing jobs and means for the 99%.

I find the current electoral debate and the attitude of the 99% interesting

. They want income through labor to be taxed at the same rate as income through capital. When u are compensated for labor, you do not stake your body and mind he underlying vehicle responsible for the labor.

If you invest 100$, you are risking the entire vehicle that earns the returns. The stock market performance from 2007 to 2011 is case in point. So the 99% want the 1% to lend capital which they risk losing as a whole, which after paying for the payroll taxes and the coporate tax , if they make a profit of 10% or 10$, the Govt wants 3$ to itz coffers again ? no wonder gold keeps shooting up instead of capital coming out to the markets and funding new ideas

Jan 30, 2012 3:20 AM George Alexander George Alexander  says: in response to ITJob

On the whole, this is a good blog and we need good investigative journalism because there is a lot of unethical if not illegal activity going on in this business and bringing up the matter will push companies to address internal issues and fix problems. Even if we have objections, they can be sorted out in an objective discussion without getting personal. I think the important thing is to keep asking questions which help the discussion move forward in the right direction.

Jan 30, 2012 3:39 AM George Alexander George Alexander  says: in response to jake_leone

The "1% vs 99%" is a class warfare slogan using the Saul Alinksy doctrine for radicals. Warren Buffet's secretary pays the same taxes for capital gains as himself or Romney - 15%. They talk about getting them to pay their "fair share". The "1%" pays 40% of the taxes so what do they exactly mean by "fair share"?. It's an "us vs them' mentality all over again. They are acting like useful idiots and need to pause for a minute and think on their own instead of burning the American flag - the highest form of disrespect to this coutnry or taking over vacant buildings and worsening the economies of these cities by threatening to close ports and airports which are already reeling under the pressure of a bad economy. You would think that this happens somewhere in Afganisthan or Pakistan. No, burning the American flag right here in the US seems to be the cool thing to do these days. Even foreigners wouldn't do such a thing here. What a dumbed down generation of entitlement kiddies who haven't seen the real world that's hard to know what it means to work hard and move themselves up the income ladder.

The Tea Party was far more respectful and patriotic. The flag was high and the law and order was respected. No one got killed or overdosed with drugs or raped. Instead of using violence as a means to an end, they got their representives elected in 2010 and spoke through their right to vote.

Jan 30, 2012 4:30 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to ITJob

Do not distort what I write. I specifically wrote that one of the purposes of this blog is to serve as a forum in which people can comment and express their opinions. That does not mean that I don't reserve the right to challenge statements that are made on the basis of a false premise. My record for welcoming and encouraging comments that express an opposing viewpoint speaks for itself.

The question of whether a career journalist should write a blog is a legitimate one -- there are good arguments on both sides of that debate. My view is that it is perfectly acceptable for a career journalist to write a blog, as long as the blog is clearly identified as such. I am confident that the vast majority of readers are capable of understanding the difference between a blog post and a news article, and they can consider the merits of each accordingly. Anyone who has ever provided me with confidential information that has appeared in this blog did so for the purpose of having it disclosed in this blog. If my journalistic credentials enable me to be more effective in sourcing confidential information that warrants public disclosure, so be it. There is nothing that prevents anyone from undertaking the incredibly hard work and demonstrating the perseverance required to become an award-winning journalist.

Jan 30, 2012 4:37 AM jake_leone jake_leone  says:

Reality of the visa programs is that they are government programs.

InfoSys found a loophole, that if everyone in the company would just play along they could avoid paying U.S. Federal and State income taxes, SSI taxes, on employees doing work in the United States.

The true cost of doing a fraudulent business is that low-level employees have a choice between lying on federal forms (thus risking major jail-time) or be ostracized (as Jay Palmer was), or fired.

The true cost of the Visa-Corporate-Welfare program is millions of unemployed U.S. citizens, because many of the Visas are used to offshore jobs from the United States.

The whole reason why capital gains is 15%, is because the rich can afford to lobby Congress for a huge tax break.

The main reason people are upset with the Government is because Corporations are "sucking at the teet" of the United States government.  And that's a quote from an esteemed Republican Congressman.

Jan 30, 2012 5:09 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says:

I'm deleting one of your comments because it contains a personal insult. Keep it noble.

Jan 30, 2012 5:23 AM jake_leone jake_leone  says: in response to Don Tennant

I was responding to "GeorgeTheArchitect" insult, that I am unpatriotic.  Nothing could be farther, and he needs to understand that cannot go unchallenged.

It is a straw man argument.  And is typical McCarthyist argument is to claim those who you happen to disagree with are "Unpatriotic". 

It takes more than just waving the flag to support our troops (which if you saw my car and home, you'd see I do respect the flag).  Hell no, I don't believe in burning the flag (and that's a huge unforgiveable insult to even suggest that).

It takes a (all 3) personal, spiritual, and financial commitment to support our troops.  If you don't believe in paying taxes, then you don't believe in supporting our troops, plain and simple.

Jan 30, 2012 5:28 AM George Alexander George Alexander  says: in response to jake_leone

oh my, where did you get the notion that I said you are unpatriotic? I didn't make any accusation against you.

Jan 30, 2012 6:32 AM ITJob ITJob  says: in response to Don Tennant

"I specifically wrote that one of the purposes of this blog is to serve as a forum in which people can comment and express their opinions. "

  When you blog about a person/company with your judgement then there is nothing others can discuss or express about it. Because, you just gave judgement (even before court of law wants to pass it) which is not what you had intended when you had started blogging.

"The question of whether a career journalist should write a blog is a legitimate one -- there are good arguments on both sides of that debate. "

  This is where you and me differs, you can be career journalist and blogger there is no dispute about it. But when you use your journalist position to obtain confidential information and use it as a blogger then you crossed limits of both.

Why? It is very simple, Lets say I work for a company which is listed in NASDAQ.

I get insider information as a employee which is legal to me and I came to know my company is going to gain or loss a big project. Which could affect my company financially in either way.

On the side I'm a day trader (or occasional investor) which is legal and I buy every single stock (which I'm interested in) from the market along with my company stock.

As you would have guessed there is one issue, I cannot buy my company stock whenever I wanted because I get a insider information as a employee. But legally I can do both but there is limit which I can't cross. This is what you as a Journalist and Blogger doing which is not legally (may be) or worst case ethically right.

You are getting information as a journalist (which has it own protection for a reason) and using such information as a blogger, but with a protection given to journalist (which is not available for a blogger....hint wikileaks).

Again you can keep justifying what you were doing, fortunately there is a grey area which you are currently enjoying(or abusing).

I rest my case.

Jan 30, 2012 6:43 AM ITJob ITJob  says: in response to Don Tennant

Sorry for the spam...forgot to respond your last statement..

"There is nothing that prevents anyone from undertaking the incredibly hard work and demonstrating the perseverance required to become an award-winning journalist."

Your are right you are incredibly hard working to get information which you have every right to use it as a journalist (for news article) but not as a blogger. And to my knowledge no award-winning journalist use their journalist position to obtain information and use it in their blog. Also no award winning journalist pass judgement in their article. Unfortunately you seem to be missing both the characters required to be award winning journalist.

Best of luck.

Jan 30, 2012 8:02 AM jake_leone jake_leone  says: in response to

Visas are a government program.  They are created by the government.  Corporations such as InfoSys have used this government program to bring labor that is working at less than minimum wage (B-1 visa issue as the heart of the investigation of InfoSys by the U.S. government).

Investors and Corporations lobby the U.S. government hard, probably harder than citizen action groups.  They get special loopholes that favor their market and their business activities. 

The capitalism you talk about simply does not exist.  Otherwise why the bank bail-outs?  Why the AIG bailout, and why did we have to bail them out them when their "Investment/Insurance/Market" strategies failed? Why the quantitative easing by the Fed?  Simple, because the fat-cats are all connected, and they support each other.  The whole thing reminds me of the deregulation banking scandals in the 80's. 

If you expect a government hand-out, and visas are a government hand-out.  You should also expect to be held accountable, to give information on how those visas are used.  The American public needs to know so that we can make decisions/changes to existing programs that can benefit the country as a whole, not just special interest groups (such as the 1%, corporations, or investors).

The spirit of the H-1b law was that corporations would not use it to outsource, but that is how it is used, and so it needs reform.

The B-1 visa law was not meant to be used to create a U.S. workforce, but that's what InfoSys has done, and that was illegal and they are using mafianesque tactics to cover it up.

Jan 30, 2012 11:09 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

"Bribery Act 2010 and other similar regulations, it is possible that some of our employees, subcontractors, agents or partners may violate any such legal and regulatory requirements, which may expose us to criminal or civil enforcement actions, including penalties and suspension or disqualification from U.S. federal procurement contracting."

I know that the law applies towards American citizens and permanent residents.  It's an interesting topic because in some countries bribery is standard practice.  So what of the people in the gray area - are those on non-immigrant visas who have established residencies in the US able to conduct bribery in other nations during their travels and not be charged in the US?

It sounds strange to say this, but foreign employees seem to have a competitive advantage because they may be able to grease the wheels as customary in many countries and not fear prosecution in the USA.

In almost every government contract, here in the US, I've seen what I consider to be graft, corruption, and kick-backs in one form or another.  In the US you still have it, however it's often disguised better. 

It's almost routine to have a revolving door between government employees and contractors - of people instrumental of approving and negotiating the contract.  "Gee, I see that the government hasn't set you up for a cushy retirement. . . . once we "get to know you more and build trust" there will certainly be some open doors.

They learned this practice from the very people we elected - most of whom become lobbyists when they leave office.  Newt's even found a nifty way to avoid those pesky laws lobbyist laws by calling himself a "consultant".

There is so much peddling of influence in this country, it's obscene.

Jan 30, 2012 11:17 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Don Tennant

I find myself in the strange position of wanting Infosys to hire more Americans instead of the token few they currently hire, but also I have concerns about their understanding and adherence to American employment norms and laws. 

Leaders in that company come from a country that has a very different outlook on employee rights.  I believe that they see corporations almost as extensions of government.  Great Britain did a fine job demonstrating to them western values in regards to employment rights; apparently it stuck.  The west moved on to more progressive pastures, but many of the former colonies did not.  The west reinforced the notion of a ruling class.

India should really be a reminder to each us of what life without worker rights would be like - and what it was like.  It should remind us what it is we fight for.

Jan 30, 2012 11:26 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to George Alexander

I almost see this as "proving grounds" for articles.  I see journalist blogging as honesty in journalism, so long as they follow a conservative approach outside of the blog and attempt to be as unbiased as possible I'm all for it.

I think that the media in general has abandoned journalistic integrity in favor of entertainment.  I don't lump Don in with that - but I also believe that Don's career would soar if only he were willing to sellout.  You aren't always rewarded for doing a good job. 

Of course, it's almost always lucrative to do things that are both "wrong" but still legal.  That offshore bank account doesn't seem to eat at Romney's conscience.

Jan 30, 2012 11:41 AM George A George A  says:

Come on, Don. What is wrong with Infosys pursuing government business? Are they not generating employment in the US by doing that? I can understand you are going after them for some reason, but, do you know they have and are hiring a bunch of people here in the US? Is this not good for the employment picture here? Please don't allow your personal vendetta to blur your vision about the good these companies are trying to do.

Jan 30, 2012 11:42 AM George Alexander George Alexander  says:

huh? They're trying to get more business. What's so hard to understand about that?

>>Now, six months later, one might have expected that given the circumstances of having to publicly acknowledge that the company and some of its employees are targets of the federal government's criminal investigation, Infosys would at the very least put its efforts to get more business from the U.S. government on hold.

Can you explain why we should expect that? Many companies have been under investigation by the Feds and still do business with them - Haliburton, Accenture, BP to name a few. Nothing new here.

Jan 30, 2012 11:51 AM George A George A  says: in response to George Alexander

Exactly. Making a mountain out of a mole hill! Don is running out of topics!

Jan 30, 2012 12:39 PM Jake_Leone Jake_Leone  says:

There is a lot wrong with InfoSys going after government contracts.

And it is bitterly ironic that they would even consider this, in the midst of this tax fraud and corruption case.

InfoSys is proving to be an organization that DOES NOT have any ability to keep itself from violating the law.  A company such as InfoSys, which actively tried to withhold information from a U.S. government criminal investigation, by pressuring a low-level employee into submission, should not be allowed to bid on government contracts.

Further InfoSys has continued to hide information and is actively relocating employees involved with the crime, back to India.

Unfortunately, within InfoSys, the business pressures are such that violating U.S. anti-corruption law seems common.  I think that allowing such a company to continue to be part of a bid process is the same as inviting the mafia to bid on your bridge construction.

What has really changed at InfoSys since this investigation began?  Nothing.  Our federal government handles sensistive information, lives depend on it, it has to be handled by companies that we can trust, which have reason and motivation to act ethically.  That quality has to be a mission-critical aspect of any Federal Government IT Project.

InfoSys is a high risk gamble for such sensitive and dangerous work. 

I don't want my personal information to be gambled with.  I don't want our defenders lives to be gambled with.  I don't want our air traffic system to be gambled with.  I don't want our tax dollars to be gambled with.  Doing business with InfoSys, is worse than gambling as they are proving to be corrupt from the top-down.

It is sick that they have to put on veil of lies, such as this document, to cover it up.

Jan 31, 2012 3:28 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Don Tennant

"I would imagine that longtime readers of this blog will get a good chuckle from your accusation that I deleted it because I can't take on someone who doesn't agree with me."

The personal insults are always a distraction from the issue.  Don use to have a "Wild West" policy - meaning anything goes.  His only policy at this point is no personal insults.  I think the conversation has been far more productive since then, and he hasn't deleted very many posts. 

I enjoy debating policy and the finer points, but you never get past a superficial debate once the insults start flying.  I can summarize however how it usually unfolds:

1) Stupid (insert nationality here).  You are a (xenophobe, protectionist, foreigner).  Mind your own business / Learn to compete. 

2) "Uh-uh - you're a ..."

3) Goto 1

If you're American, you obviously hate foreign people.  Xenophobe.  If you're Indian, you're meddling in something that's not your business - we don't go to your country and...

I have a technique that I started applying myself.  Before posting, I do a quick search for words like "you" and make sure I'm not personalizing the issue.

Jan 31, 2012 4:32 AM SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6  says:

Here's some that Narayana Murthy said in a recent press quote:

Corrupt are becoming role models for youth: Narayana Murthy

Are India's corrupt and the dishonest becoming role-models for youngsters of the country? Software icon NR Narayana Murthy believes so. 'The number of role-models that our youngsters can look up to is decreasing. How many people in our public life can you be proud of for honesty, courage, commitment and hard work?

He also said Indians are perhaps the most 'thin-skinned' people in the world. 'We see insults where none is meant. We get upset very easily. We think that somebody is out to make India look bad. That's not true'.


Jan 31, 2012 8:34 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

Stick to your guns here, Don. We individual posters used to come under withing fire from them in too. Infosys is getting nowhere near the coverage it deserves, and you are helping to rectify that. Meanwhile, this is spreading like wildfire: Expect the pro-foreign continent to heap contempt upon anyone who objects to their juggernaut.

Jan 31, 2012 9:18 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

Did you read my post(s)?  I blamed western culture and historical wrongs (colonialism) for the current state of affairs.  If it makes you feel better, we did go to war with the British during the period - they wanted to make us a British colony as well and we decided to turn their pretty red uniforms into targets.  We taught them that real soldiers hide behind trees and catch you by surprise, not march in formation to be slaughtered.

I also accused American government contractors in my own country of participating in both graft and corruption as a norm, not the exception.  I don't dislike India or Indians.  Most of my criticism is aimed at my own country. 

In fact, I believe that the Indian government is in many cases representing Indian corporate interests, and to some extent the people, fantastically and wish my government would do the same.  I am far more critical of my own government for allowing companies like Infosys to abuse the system, than of Infosys.

Face it, in the case of Infosys we have a foreign company that uses our visa system to staff a super-majority of their American based workers.  They discriminate on a daily basis against Americans violating EEOC laws, and as a result non-American (not to be confused with anti-American) corporate values are instilled in the workers and management here.  Why should we expect them to understand American employment law?  Most of them aren't Americans, and don't even work with Americans except perhaps when they are on-site.  The HR department is going to produce key witnesses for the government.  There's your sign.

This company is an offshore service provider so they should be restricted to the L-1 for true management and the B-1 when used appropriately.  Our visa system should not be a tool to offshore jobs.  Period.  Our country, our rules. 

If we don't like the state of affairs, we have a tradition of making loud noises and threatening to vote for the other guy.  This is "what we do".  It's what we should be doing.  Free speech is an important exercise in democracy.  So to call this trolling is absurd.

Finally, I was opining on bribery law that Don quoted.  So my thoughts are related to the discussion.  This isn't twitter or the fragmented news you get on cable TV (maybe that's where Twitter got the idea?), so I can be verbose.  I can complete a thought or sentence that isn't part of the talking points or narrative that the corporate media wants you to hear.

Jan 31, 2012 9:49 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says:

Response to George: I am deleting your comment because it contains a personal insult.

Jan 31, 2012 9:56 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says:

I am deleting your comment because it contains a personal insult. (response to ITJob)

Jan 31, 2012 10:01 AM Mark Mark  says: in response to Don Tennant

Amen! enough said

Jan 31, 2012 12:14 PM George George  says: in response to Don Tennant

I am not surprised. You cannot take on somebody who does not agree with you. You seem to have mind set on one thing and one thing only, whether it is true or not - that is show this company in bad light. How can you pass judgements about Infosys even before this is debated fully? Come on! I am not defending Infosys here, but, why not let it play out. Please refrain from making judgements.

Jan 31, 2012 12:36 PM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to George

You are apparently referring to the fact that I deleted a comment that contained a personal insult. I would imagine that longtime readers of this blog will get a good chuckle from your accusation that I deleted it because I can't take on someone who doesn't agree with me. A relatively small percentage of the people who have posted comments on this blog have done so because they agree with me.

My advice to you would be to refrain from making an accusation like that when you really don't know the reality of the situation. The fact that you would make such a baseless accusation is insulting, but I'll let it slide, because you're apparently new to this blog. Do not insult me again.

I am passing judgment on no one. As I've stated before, I have expressed my views after having seen proof that Infosys has engaged in fraud and illegal retaliatory activity. I do not have to wait for a legal judgment to be made to know what I have seen with my own eyes.

Feb 1, 2012 12:08 PM IAmNumber813 IAmNumber813  says:

"Although we believe that we have adequate policies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure legal and regulatory compliance with the FCPA, the Bribery Act 2010 and other similar regulations, it is possible that some of our employees, subcontractors, agents or partners may violate any such legal and regulatory requirements, which may expose us to criminal or civil enforcement actions, including penalties and suspension or disqualification from U.S. federal procurement contracting."

If you stop and think about it for a minute, this is an amazing admission for a corporation operating in the U.S. to make. Basically, Infosys is saying:

"Gee whiz, our hiring practices and employee training are so lax and ineffective that we may have many scammers, liars and con artists throughout our company that may offer bribes and other favors and who we can't control. But since we admitted this our hands are clean. However, we now want to do work for the U.S. federal government."

This admission should be shown within the first five minutes of Palmer's lawyer's opening statement to the jury (if that case goes to trial).

After reading this admission, if I were a U.S. attorney or state-level D.A., I would set up a fake corporation and "test" some of Infosys' (and other Indian outsourcers) employees with contract bids and see what gets caught on the fishing line.

Another way to view this public admission is that Infosys could be obscurely advertising to certain people that some of their employees may offer bribes in return for contract work.

Feb 2, 2012 10:04 AM Bystander Bystander  says: in response to IAmNumber813

This is very interesting--a damage control by Infy (which may not be true)

Feb 2, 2012 11:08 AM IAmNumber813 IAmNumber813  says:

"Infosys hires a lot of US locals, wants to localise most operations: V Balakrishnan"


"V Balakrishnan, Member of Board and CFO, Infosys, talks to ET Now on the business, budget expectations and offshore business environment."

The other big overhang, at least the way some in the street are reading, is the battle for visas really because you have two prong battle to fight in the US over the visa row, how are the meetings with the US Attorney in Texas proceeding?

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.


I think Infosys needs to change law firms...."come up for trial[????]"

Feb 3, 2012 2:58 AM Kasha Kasha  says: in response to SealTeam6 SealTeam6

I'll try and supply a huge piece of context that is missing here.

When NR Narayana Murthy said "'We see insults where none is meant" I think he is referring to the current situation in India where the powerful elite (thin skinned) want to censor the internet. And there is an uproar from the internet users (though a tiny fraction of the total population). That is here:

There is no actual free speech in India, in the sense that it is definitely there in the Constitution but not in practice. Even the main stream newspapers did not publish the above news item until after NYT had published it and it spread to India through online media. Wonder why ?Apart from self-censorship, "paid media" syndrome, "private treaties" between media and corporates, linkages (example: NDTV and Infosys) there is another chilling effect. That is, many draconian laws, policies, thuggery and of course corruption and finally the "thin skin" Murthy referred to. Many Indian companies have gladly used police cybercrime cells (called "cyber cells") (which incidentally are all trained by NASSCOM) to uncover and subdue internet based whistleblowers and disgruntled customers, social activists and such like. The cyber police officers seem to be financially supported by the sponsoring companies in at least some of these raids. Only thugs and hitmen had such perks and privileges in the past ! (In the Jay Polychem case Times Of India reported that they have the evidence of the police officers travel tickets paid for by the sponsor company, probably more). Police are able to arrest internet users for blowing the whistle, for protesting against malpractice and faulty services or for opposing certain corporate policies. Some could really be blackmailers (but there is no statistics, it is probably miniscule). All this is pretty routine now. Some Indian companies have used courts in addition to police threats because, under the Information Technology Act, insulting or annoying words are criminal when written on the internet. Here:'t believe that ? Two case studies. A cartoonist was stopped by Mumbai cyber cell police from publishing his cartoon on his blog after he could publish it absolutely fine on his newspaper   (See the cartoon at ). An older case in Mumbai was linked to a private school apparently connected to Murthy himself ! Read it at

Well, we don't know as yet whether Murthy is really for freedom of speech or against. Your guess is as good as mine. We need to judge the man by his actions (not by his speech alone) but I don't see much from him in this field.

Apr 9, 2012 3:05 AM pradeep pradeep  says: in response to Kasha

Thank You

The given information is very effective

i will keep updated with the same

industrial automation training

Apr 10, 2012 5:39 AM pradeep pradeep  says: in response to Kasha

Thank You

The given information is very effective

i will keep updated with the same

industrial automation


Post a comment





(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.



Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.