Khobragade - Richards case: two versions // NYC DA Preet Bharara's statement
New York Workers Recall Minimal Efforts to Enforce Minimum Wage Law
U.S. diplomat kills man in car crash, leaves Kenya (Aug 2013)
Preet Bharara Pours Gasoline on the Fire
Former envoy to the US writes about maids, lawyers and American dreams
Peter Van Buren - Diplomatic Abuse of Servants: Not Just for Indians
The Devyani Khobragade controversy is not just about the provocative arrest of a senior Indian diplomat. Highly placed sources have told Mail Today that Sangeeta Richard, the maid at the centre of the controversy, was previously employed by a senior US diplomat. Another intriguing part of the unfolding story is that a visa was issued to Richard family-Sangeeta's husband Philip and their two children-and they left the country by an Air India flight on December 10, even as New Delhi was engaging with Washington on the issue. A Mail Today investigation has revealed how the saga unfolded, with the Indian Deputy Consul General finding it difficult even to lodge a missing persons report for Sangeeta Richard with the New York Police Department (NYPD), and how the US ignored India's plea for action against Richard and instead piled pressure on India. Mail Today has accessed official documents to weave the story together. This is how it all went down:
NOVEMBER 2012: Sangeeta Richard enters the United States with Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade.
U.S. diplomat kills man in car crash, leaves Kenya (Aug 2013)
Preet Bharara Pours Gasoline on the Fire
Former envoy to the US writes about maids, lawyers and American dreams
Peter Van Buren - Diplomatic Abuse of Servants: Not Just for Indians
The Devyani Khobragade controversy is not just about the provocative arrest of a senior Indian diplomat. Highly placed sources have told Mail Today that Sangeeta Richard, the maid at the centre of the controversy, was previously employed by a senior US diplomat. Another intriguing part of the unfolding story is that a visa was issued to Richard family-Sangeeta's husband Philip and their two children-and they left the country by an Air India flight on December 10, even as New Delhi was engaging with Washington on the issue. A Mail Today investigation has revealed how the saga unfolded, with the Indian Deputy Consul General finding it difficult even to lodge a missing persons report for Sangeeta Richard with the New York Police Department (NYPD), and how the US ignored India's plea for action against Richard and instead piled pressure on India. Mail Today has accessed official documents to weave the story together. This is how it all went down:
NOVEMBER 2012: Sangeeta Richard enters the United States with Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade.
JUNE 23, 2013: Richard goes missing. In Delhi, her husband says he has no idea where she is. Richard had some days earlier sought Khobragade's permission to take up another part-time job in New York; it was denied.
JUNE 24, 2013: Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) in New York informed, and its help requested in tracing Richard. An intriguing part of the story is how difficult it became for Khobragade to file a Missing Persons Report with the NYPD. It was on the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person report at the police precinct concerned, but was told that she could not since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family. When Mr Richard, Sangeeta's husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person Report, indicating his awareness of something being amiss.
JUNE 25, 2013: Unable to file a report, Devyani sends a letter to the police precinct concerned, requesting them to file a missing person report and trace Richard. Sustained efforts resulted in the NYPD seeking inspection of Khobragade's residence. As diplomatic premises are out of bounds for local law enforcement agencies, Khobragade was interviewed in front of the Permanent Mission of India, her residence, and a missing person report filed by the NYPD.
JULY 1, 2013: A woman claiming to be the Richard's lawyer calls Khobragade to tell her that Sangeeta would not go to court only if, one, the Indian diplomat signs a 566 form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, and, two, change her visa status from government visa to normal visa, and, three, be compensated for 19 hours of work per day. Khobragade refuses to negotiate on phone, insisting that the caller first identify herself; the caller hangs up.
JUNE 24, 2013: Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) in New York informed, and its help requested in tracing Richard. An intriguing part of the story is how difficult it became for Khobragade to file a Missing Persons Report with the NYPD. It was on the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person report at the police precinct concerned, but was told that she could not since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family. When Mr Richard, Sangeeta's husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person Report, indicating his awareness of something being amiss.
JUNE 25, 2013: Unable to file a report, Devyani sends a letter to the police precinct concerned, requesting them to file a missing person report and trace Richard. Sustained efforts resulted in the NYPD seeking inspection of Khobragade's residence. As diplomatic premises are out of bounds for local law enforcement agencies, Khobragade was interviewed in front of the Permanent Mission of India, her residence, and a missing person report filed by the NYPD.
JULY 1, 2013: A woman claiming to be the Richard's lawyer calls Khobragade to tell her that Sangeeta would not go to court only if, one, the Indian diplomat signs a 566 form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, and, two, change her visa status from government visa to normal visa, and, three, be compensated for 19 hours of work per day. Khobragade refuses to negotiate on phone, insisting that the caller first identify herself; the caller hangs up.
JULY 2, 2013: Khobragade informs the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, given that the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid has no intention of returning to India and seems keen to extort money by making false accusations. No action is taken.
Khobragade files a written complaint with the Delhi Police against Sangeeta Richard and her husband Philip Richard, accusing them of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and asking the police to book them for the offence and recover the maids official passport.
JULY 5, 2013: Khobragade files complaint of agaggravated harassment with respect to the phone call received on July 1 for extortion and blackmail. No action taken by NYPD.
Michael Phillips, Director (Human Resources) at the US embassy in New Delhi, is called by senior MEA official and briefed about missing maid, reports filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and the FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard. The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy is emphatically solicited in locating the maid and sending her back to India to pre-empt this being used as an immigration channel. The US Embassy conveys its understanding and promises to follow-up with the State Department and local authorities. No feedback is received India's requests, however. Similar requests were made by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the State Department in Washington D.C. Lack of cooperation by Philip Richard prompts Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to advise Khobragade on filing a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard family for wilful deceit and attempt to cheat to illegally immigrate to the US by wrongful means. Based on the MEA's advice, Khobragade also filed for an anticipatory anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to prevent filing of any case in the US by Richard to avoid ensuing litigation in the US.
JULY 8, 2013: Khobragade is called to 'Access Immigration', an immigration lawye's office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade meets Richard whose seeks payment of $10,000, grant of an ordinary Indian passport along with whatever immigration relief is required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport. Consulate officials tell Richard that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard is told that any argument over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Richard refuses, saying that she wants to remain in the US. Khobragade complains to the NYPD about the demands, but there is no response. Richard's passport is revoked and notice for termination of her personal identity also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying illegally in the US. Felony / theft charge filed with NYPD against Richard by Khobragade's husband, reporting theft of cash, Blackberry phone, two SIM cards, a metro card (valued at $113) and documents such as contracts, signed receipt book-cum-working hour log. No action taken.
JULY 15 & 19, 2013: Philip Richard filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with 'slave labour'and illegally making Sangeeta sign a 'second contract' with far less pay and perks. The Union of India is accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdraws his writ petition four days later.
JULY 30, 2013: A copy of Philip Richard's writ petition is forwarded to OFM, which states that Sangeeta is in police custody in New York, for producing the maid at the Consulate so she can be repatriated to India as requested by her husband in his writ petition. Consul General is also informed that Richard was last seen at the office of Access Immigration on July 8, 2013. No action taken by the US.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013: US State Department issues a one-sided letter to the Indian Ambassador, projecting the allegations of the maid which are of considerable concern, and asking for the allegations to be probed. It also seeks a voluntary meeting between Khobragade and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department as well as proof of payment of minimum wages from the embassy.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013: In Delhi, MEA calls US officials and strongly protests against the tone and content of the letter.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2013: Delhi High Court issues an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. The final hearing in the matter is scheduled December 13, 2013.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2013: A reply is sent to the State Department by the Indian Embassy in Washington, rebutting the allegations and bringing out the facts of the case while highlighting the fact that Sangeeta Richard is seeking monetary settlement and a US visa, thereby seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The letter also emphasises that the matter is an issue between the Government of India and one of its employees and is not subject to US regulation or adjudication. Assistance of the State Department is sought in locating and repatriating Sangeeta Richard to India.
NOVEMBER 19, 2013: Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, issues a nonbailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard.
DECEMBER 6, 2013: The arrest warrant issued by the Delhi Metropolitan court is forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi, requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Sangeeta Richard to India through the Consulate in New York, so that due process of law may be prosecuted in India. No action is taken by the US.
The State Department said the notification sent to the embassy was part of official procedure and the department's policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member. Officials at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC could not be reached to comment on what, if any, action was taken by the Indian government upon receipt of the notification from the State Department. The State Department has clarified Khobragade has consular immunity, which applied only to functions performed in line with her official duties and not to alleged crimes such as visa fraud. She does not have diplomatic immunity, which applies across the board.With the Indian government now reportedly moving to obtain diplomatic immunity for Khobragade, the disclosure of the State Department's prior notification could raise the question as why Indian officials did not anticipate possible action against their diplomat and take action to provide her with diplomatic immunity earlier if they were convinced there was no wrongdoing on her part.
On December 5, 25 current and former Russian diplomats in New York and their spouses were charged with defrauding Medicaid, a state-run healthcare program, but none was arrested or prosecuted as the US said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
By Indira Kannan in Toronto
Khobragade files a written complaint with the Delhi Police against Sangeeta Richard and her husband Philip Richard, accusing them of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and asking the police to book them for the offence and recover the maids official passport.
JULY 5, 2013: Khobragade files complaint of agaggravated harassment with respect to the phone call received on July 1 for extortion and blackmail. No action taken by NYPD.
Michael Phillips, Director (Human Resources) at the US embassy in New Delhi, is called by senior MEA official and briefed about missing maid, reports filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and the FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard. The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy is emphatically solicited in locating the maid and sending her back to India to pre-empt this being used as an immigration channel. The US Embassy conveys its understanding and promises to follow-up with the State Department and local authorities. No feedback is received India's requests, however. Similar requests were made by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the State Department in Washington D.C. Lack of cooperation by Philip Richard prompts Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to advise Khobragade on filing a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard family for wilful deceit and attempt to cheat to illegally immigrate to the US by wrongful means. Based on the MEA's advice, Khobragade also filed for an anticipatory anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to prevent filing of any case in the US by Richard to avoid ensuing litigation in the US.
JULY 8, 2013: Khobragade is called to 'Access Immigration', an immigration lawye's office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade meets Richard whose seeks payment of $10,000, grant of an ordinary Indian passport along with whatever immigration relief is required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport. Consulate officials tell Richard that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard is told that any argument over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Richard refuses, saying that she wants to remain in the US. Khobragade complains to the NYPD about the demands, but there is no response. Richard's passport is revoked and notice for termination of her personal identity also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying illegally in the US. Felony / theft charge filed with NYPD against Richard by Khobragade's husband, reporting theft of cash, Blackberry phone, two SIM cards, a metro card (valued at $113) and documents such as contracts, signed receipt book-cum-working hour log. No action taken.
JULY 15 & 19, 2013: Philip Richard filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with 'slave labour'and illegally making Sangeeta sign a 'second contract' with far less pay and perks. The Union of India is accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdraws his writ petition four days later.
JULY 30, 2013: A copy of Philip Richard's writ petition is forwarded to OFM, which states that Sangeeta is in police custody in New York, for producing the maid at the Consulate so she can be repatriated to India as requested by her husband in his writ petition. Consul General is also informed that Richard was last seen at the office of Access Immigration on July 8, 2013. No action taken by the US.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013: US State Department issues a one-sided letter to the Indian Ambassador, projecting the allegations of the maid which are of considerable concern, and asking for the allegations to be probed. It also seeks a voluntary meeting between Khobragade and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department as well as proof of payment of minimum wages from the embassy.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013: In Delhi, MEA calls US officials and strongly protests against the tone and content of the letter.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2013: Delhi High Court issues an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. The final hearing in the matter is scheduled December 13, 2013.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2013: A reply is sent to the State Department by the Indian Embassy in Washington, rebutting the allegations and bringing out the facts of the case while highlighting the fact that Sangeeta Richard is seeking monetary settlement and a US visa, thereby seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The letter also emphasises that the matter is an issue between the Government of India and one of its employees and is not subject to US regulation or adjudication. Assistance of the State Department is sought in locating and repatriating Sangeeta Richard to India.
NOVEMBER 19, 2013: Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, issues a nonbailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard.
DECEMBER 6, 2013: The arrest warrant issued by the Delhi Metropolitan court is forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi, requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Sangeeta Richard to India through the Consulate in New York, so that due process of law may be prosecuted in India. No action is taken by the US.
DECEMBER 12, 2013: Khobragade arrested on the basis of a Second District court warrant for visa fraud as she drops her daughter to school in New York. Immunity is denied under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) for this "felony charge" Bail posted at $250,000, Khobragade's passport is seized, and she is asked not to leave the country or seek another travel document though she can travel within the US after notifying authorities. She is been not to be in touch with Sangeeta Richard.
JANUARY 13, 2014: Next date of hearing is announced, but Khobragade's attorney claims he is not free that day and is negotiating another date, which will be known in due course. Pre-trial process commenced on December 16, 2013 where a urine sample was taken by US authorities for drugs testing.
JANUARY 13, 2014: Next date of hearing is announced, but Khobragade's attorney claims he is not free that day and is negotiating another date, which will be known in due course. Pre-trial process commenced on December 16, 2013 where a urine sample was taken by US authorities for drugs testing.
The United States had informed the Indian government about the allegations against Devyani Khobragade, the Deputy Consul General in New York, over three months prior to her arrest last week. A State Department official told Mail Today, "To confirm, the State Department notified the Indian Embassy in writing on September 4. The Department of State advised the Embassy of the Republic of India of allegations of abuse made by an Indian national against the Deputy Consul General of India in New York." This refers to the allegations by Khobragade's former housekeeper and babysitter, who the US Attorney's office in New York has charged was brought in to the US on the basis of fraudulent information given by the Indian diplomat and then paid less than the amount specified in her contract as well as minimum wages in America.
The State Department said the notification sent to the embassy was part of official procedure and the department's policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member. Officials at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC could not be reached to comment on what, if any, action was taken by the Indian government upon receipt of the notification from the State Department. The State Department has clarified Khobragade has consular immunity, which applied only to functions performed in line with her official duties and not to alleged crimes such as visa fraud. She does not have diplomatic immunity, which applies across the board.With the Indian government now reportedly moving to obtain diplomatic immunity for Khobragade, the disclosure of the State Department's prior notification could raise the question as why Indian officials did not anticipate possible action against their diplomat and take action to provide her with diplomatic immunity earlier if they were convinced there was no wrongdoing on her part.
On December 5, 25 current and former Russian diplomats in New York and their spouses were charged with defrauding Medicaid, a state-run healthcare program, but none was arrested or prosecuted as the US said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
By Indira Kannan in Toronto
Sangeeta Richard, the diplomat’s housekeeper at the centre of the India-US stand-off, never tried to extort money from her employer, Devyani Khobragade, or made any of other demand as alleged, the former’s lawyer has stated. Richards’ lawyer Dana Sussman, a staff attorney with Safe Horizon, a New York non-profit that works with victims of trafficking and violence, said she just wanted a better deal for herself — better wages and more reasonable working hours. Turned down, she left one day. "There was no extortion or anything along those lines," Dana Sussman told a US news agency.
"She essentially worked very long hours, was isolated within the home, and attempted to ask for more time off, ask for more reasonable hours, but those attempts to resolve the issues were unsuccessful." The Indian government has alleged Richard tried to extort $10,000 from Khobragade, wanted to be allowed to work elsewhere as well and be given a different passport. These demands were conveyed to Khobragade first on the phone by a woman who refused to identify herself.
Two meetings followed, according to Indian officials, at the offices of a New York immigration services firm. Richard was present in one of them, the officials added. The Indian government has said Khopragade couldn’t meet Richard’s demands because she was on an official passport, and hence could not be allowed to work elsewhere. And, they have said if she was not happy with her working conditions or her wages or the atmosphere at Khobragade’s home, she could have gone back to India. That, however, may have ceased to be an option once Khobragade went to court in India and obtained an arrest warrant for Richard in September. Richard had left Khobragade’s residence in New York on June 23. Sussman said from then Richard was on her own, living largely on help from strangers in the Indian-American community, including a Sikh gurudwara.
The housekeeper and Sussman subsequently complained to the state department. Though it isn’t clear from the published interviews when that happened, possibly it was late August. "She was basically just trying to find her way. She was left with the clothes on her back, with very little money," said Sussman, who was not available for more interviews, said Safe Horizon. And Richard and her family are not speaking to the media.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sangeeta-was-exploited-wrong-to-blame-her-lawyer/article1-1164936.aspx
NYC DA Preet Bharara's statement
'So it is alleged not merely that she sought to evade the law, but that she affirmatively created false documents and went ahead with lying to the US government about what she was doing. One wonders whether any government would not take action regarding false documents being submitted to it in order to bring immigrants into the country. One wonders even more pointedly whether any government would not take action regarding that alleged conduct where the purpose of the scheme was to unfairly treat a domestic worker in ways that violate the law. And one wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?..'
Peter Van Buren - LA Sheriff’s Deputies Rough Up Foreign Diplomat
NYC DA Preet Bharara's statement
'So it is alleged not merely that she sought to evade the law, but that she affirmatively created false documents and went ahead with lying to the US government about what she was doing. One wonders whether any government would not take action regarding false documents being submitted to it in order to bring immigrants into the country. One wonders even more pointedly whether any government would not take action regarding that alleged conduct where the purpose of the scheme was to unfairly treat a domestic worker in ways that violate the law. And one wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?..'
Peter Van Buren - LA Sheriff’s Deputies Rough Up Foreign Diplomat
