Rx Name Unethical Practitioners: A medical thriller unfolds in India
Don't hide them behind stethos In an episode that could rival a streaming medical thriller, Department of Pharmaceuticals' (DoP) Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices, under the ministry of chemicals and fertilisers, has found that AbbVie Healthcare India, a subsidiary of the US-based AbbVie Inc, had sponsored international trips for 30 doctors by spending nearly ₹1.91 cr in breach of Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) 2024. The trips were to Paris and Monaco - for an 'anti-ageing conference'. The twist? DoP refuses to reveal the names of these doctors, claiming that it would serve 'no public interest'. Seriously?
Under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, personal information can be withheld unless it relates to public activity, or involves a larger public interest. The Supreme Court in 'CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay' (2011) clarified that public interest trumps privacy when the matter involves ethics, misuse of public trust or potential illegality. Exposing medical professionals breaching ethical codes is as public interest-worthy as things can get. These were corporate-sponsored trips in violation of Medical Council of India (MCI) Code of Ethics, now incorporated under National Medical Commission (NMC).
It could also be a tax issue. In 'Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT' (2022), Supreme Court held that pharma companies can't claim expenses on such freebies as business deductions under Section 37(1) of I-T Act. Any expenditure prohibited by law, or contrary to public policy, can't be deemed a legitimate business expense. Finance Bill 2022 reinforced this, barring deductions for any expense in violation of MCI Code or Clause 7.2 of the UCPMP (Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices). Under Section 28(iv), any non-cash benefit or perk arising from the exercise of a profession is taxable as 'profits and gains from business or profession'. So, doctors cannot claim these as business expenses, write them off or hide them behind a stethoscope. These are professional receipts, and I-T department expects them to be disclosed.How are these freebies valued by the recipient? Where value is ascertainable, the law mandates it be used. For goods - say, a smartphone - use the fair market value. For services like travel or hotel stays, the actual cost to provider - in this case, AbbVie - must be included. Doctors are expected to report these benefits and maintain documentary evidence, such as brochures, invoices, travel itineraries, etc. There are penalties for wilful concealment.I-T department's investigation wing can legally requisition information from DoP, the sponsoring pharma company - AbbVie, here - and even travel agencies that arranged these foreign trips. If AbbVie failed to report these expenses under Section 285BA (statement of financial transactions) of I-T Act, it could constitute non-reporting of high-value transactions.With data in hand, under Section 147 (reassessment), if any income (like value of these freebies) has escaped assessment, the assessing officer can reopen past returns. Under Section 69/69B, any unexplained income or expenditure can be added to the doctor's taxable income. Non-disclosure triggers penalties under Section 270A, interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and in cases of wilful concealment, prosecution under Section 276C.AbbVie, as a US multinational, could also fall under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Under FCPA, doctors at public hospitals abroad - in this case, in India - are treated as foreign officials. Giving 'anything of value' - from per diems and conference sponsorships, to charitable donations - with a corrupt intent can trigger civil and criminal penalties in the US. Several global pharma companies have already faced FCPA enforcement for sponsoring foreign trips, or donating to charities run by government doctors.What we have here is actually a systemic failure to enforce transparency in an area that affects public health, tax revenue and professional integrity. By refusing to name the doctors, DoP is enabling opacity, shielding violators and undermining the credibility of India's regulatory frameworks.Worse, it sends a dangerous signal. The refusal to reveal names is not about privacy. It's about protecting privilege. And when privilege leads to tax evasion and ethical violations, silence becomes a public trust deficit. In this case, what happened in Paris and Monaco shouldn't stay in Paris and Monaco. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Why Infy's Parekh takes home more than TCS' CEO despite being smaller
Central bankers print currency for all, but why do they chase gold?
Worrying cracks hiding behind MG Motor's own 'house of Windsor'
Why failed small businessmen die by suicide when those behind big blow-ups bounce back?
Stock Radar: Ascending Triangle pattern breakout makes Mphasis an attractive buy; stock up over 30% from April lows
Buy, Sell or Hold: BSE doubles from March lows, but brokerages turn cautious after SEBI's expiry day directive
These mid-cap stocks with 'Strong Buy' & 'Buy' recos can rally over 25%, according to analysts
F&O Radar| Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty for gains from volatility, negative stance
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC rejects plea by IAS officer, kin seeking quashing of CBI probe into graft charge
1 2 Cuttack : The Orissa high court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by senior IAS officer Bishnupada Sethi, his wife and daughter seeking to quash a CBI investigation into alleged corruption. The court ruled that the petition was "premature and not maintainable", as the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The case stems from the arrest of a PSU executive on Dec 8 last year for allegedly accepting a Rs 10 lakh bribe from a Bhubaneswar-based real estate firm. During interrogation, Sethi's name emerged, prompting a CBI search at his residence on Feb 18 this year. The petitioners alleged procedural violations and harassment, and sought the return of seized materials. Justice S K Panigrahi, however, rejected these claims, emphasising that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be misused to derail legitimate investigations. "Higher the office, greater the responsibility," he observed, noting that Sethi, as a senior bureaucrat, is expected to uphold legal integrity, not evade scrutiny. The court stressed that no chargesheet had been filed yet, and interference at this point would undermine both investigative processes and public interest. It criticised the petitioners' approach as "forum-shopping" and warned against setting a precedent that powerful individuals can shield themselves from legal accountability. The court clarified that its refusal to intervene does not equate to a presumption of guilt, and the petitioners retain full rights to defend themselves during trial. However, it maintained that mere status or reputation cannot justify halting a probe into serious allegations of public corruption. On Feb 25, Justice Panigrahi had ordered, "As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date." The interim restriction was extended from time to time and was in force till the petition was dismissed on Friday.
Economic Times
37 minutes ago
- Economic Times
UAE rule, wary I-T to deter dodgy crypto deals
Mumbai: In the lane to launder money, the skill to move cryptos to control companies and properties in Dubai has been honed over the past few years. But treading that alley would soon become tougher. Dual, albeit unrelated, developments in India and the UAE would force money movers to devise new tricks. First, Income tax (I-T) officials, hunting for illicit homes of Indians over the past six months, now strongly suspect that some property purchases were made with cryptocurrencies; second, a new regulatory regime in the Middle East country, would soon end payment in cryptos, other than stable coins, to freely buy goods and services. "When Indian residents use crypto to purchase real estate, they bypass Indian banking channels and FEMA scrutiny. But, under the new UAE regulations (expected from August), merchants would no longer accept crypto directly. Only entities licensed by the UAE Central Bank would be allowed to convert stablecoins to AED after collecting full KYC. While this framework ensures the buyer's identity is recorded, it remains unclear whether such data would be shared under the India-UAE tax treaty," said Purushottam Anand, founder of the law firm Crypto raiding a leading UAE developer having roots in Mumbai and clients across India, a northern office of the I-T department found that more than 460 buyers in the 650-odd property deals have no record of having remitted money through banks to acquire the properties. According to findings which were shared with other I-T centres two months ago, the arm of the UAE realtor which brokered the deals was aided by a network of 86 sub-brokers who later shared details with the tax office. According to tax circles, some of the clients had paid in cryptos, probably under the belief it would go untraced. Earlier this year, the department had found that hundreds of mule accounts were opened by a few persons in Kerala to deposit cash, use the money to buy cryptos -either on local platforms or through peer-to-peer transactions-and then move the coins to other wallets before encashing the them in UAE, or buying assets like properties, or transferring them to third parties. "When digital assets move from exchanges to P2P platforms or private wallets, monitoring becomes difficult, creating opportunities for illegal activities such as ransomware attacks, laundering, tax evasion, and potentially terrorist financing. Although the exchanges are required to report 'suspicious transactions', including withdrawals, with the Financial Intelligence Unit-India, such risks can be further addressed through stricter enforcement of TDS provisions, i.e. Sections 194S or 195, ensuring tax compliance for all crypto transactions, whether conducted on or off exchanges. Additionally, specifying the reporting entities and the format for disclosures under Section 285BAA will improve traceability," said Ashish Karundia, founder of the CA firm Ashish Karundia & Co. 'PAYMENT TOKEN REGULATIONS' The new 'Payment Token Services Regulation' lays down the rules and conditions established by the UAE Central Bank for granting a licence or registration for payment token services-which include payment token issuance, token conversion, and token custody and transfer. Under the rules no merchant or anyone in the UAE selling goods or services can accept a virtual asset unless it's a dirham payment token issued by a licensed issuer. Also, a bank cannot act as a payment token issuer. UAE is working on Dirham-linked stable coin (like USDT or Tether which is pegged to the dollar)."This would have implications for India which has close economic and financial ties with the UAE. By bringing digital assets such as payment tokens under a structured licensing and anti-money laundering framework, the regulation adds a layer of safety and transparency to cross-border digital financial flows. For Indian individuals and businesses engaging in the UAE's digital economy, on one hand this means greater clarity, reduced risk of fraud, and alignment with global best practices; on the other hand, the clear prohibition on anonymous crypto instruments like privacy tokens reinforces the global trend toward traceable and regulated digital transactions. This is something India is also actively pursuing through its own financial intelligence mechanisms. This would deter transactions in property, high value luxury products bought by Indians in UAE using crypto tokens," said Siddharth Banwat, partner at CA firm Banwat & Associates dealers said the UAE rules are not entirely fool-proof as coins can be routed through platforms in multiple jurisdictions whose cooperation would be vital to spot the trail. But the very presence of licensed intermediaries collecting and storing information would deter money movers.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Rs 26 lakhs awarded to employee for not working a single day for four months. Here's what happened
A man in Abu Dhabi has been awarded AED 110,400 (approximately Rs 26 lakh) in unpaid wages, despite never having started work at the company that hired him. The decision came after a court ruled in the employee's favour, highlighting that the delay in his joining was entirely the employer's fault. Employee Signed Contract But Never Got to Work As per a report by Khaleej Times, the employee, whose identity has not been disclosed, signed a fixed-term employment contract with an Abu Dhabi-based company. The agreement promised a basic monthly salary of AED 7,200, with a total compensation package of AED 24,000. The contract covered the period from November 11, 2024, to April 7, 2025. However, despite this agreement, the individual was never actually permitted to begin work. Frustrated by repeated delays and the absence of any opportunity to start his job, the man eventually filed a lawsuit seeking his withheld salary for the contract period. The court accepted his claim and ordered the company to compensate him for four months and 18 days of unpaid wages, after deducting eight days he admitted to being on leave. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Live Comfortably: 60 m² Prefab Bungalow for Seniors in Tanza Pre Fabricated Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo Court Places Responsibility on Employer The Abu Dhabi Labour Court held the employer accountable for the delay in onboarding. Citing Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021, the court underlined that employers are legally required to pay wages on time, following standards set by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation. It also referred to Article 912 of the Civil Transactions Law, which states that a worker's right to wages cannot be denied unless the employee has formally waived that right or acknowledged non-entitlement. The court examined various documents including the wage report, employment contract, and case file, and found that the fault clearly lay with the company. The evidence confirmed that the delay was not caused by the employee, as the employer had failed to provide any proof of misconduct or absenteeism. Employer's Argument Rejected by Court In response to the lawsuit, the company argued that the employee had taken leave and never reported to duty. However, the court found no records or documentation to support this claim. No formal investigation had been conducted into the employee's alleged absence. Consequently, the court dismissed the company's justification and concluded that the employee's failure to start work was directly linked to the employer's own inaction.
