* Commission asks about accounting standards to support the calculation methodology
By Shehan Chamika Silva
The PCoI today questioned PTL CEO Kasun Palisena about the phone conversation recordings handed over by the PTL earlier as to whether he could identify the required dealer conversations in relation to the specific bond transactions.
Earlier, PTL had handed over all its phone recordings stored in its system platform, which contained all of the phone conversations on the requested dates.
However, the Attorney General’s Department earlier demanded the exact dealer phone conversations in relation to the specific transactions because of the impediment they faced in perusing a large volume of conversations which contained all phone conversations of a given day.
But the PTL lawyer Nihal Fernando PC was of the view that such identification was not humanly possible at the time because it could take more time and that they had already given what was required by the Commission.
Acceding the Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunathilake’s subsequent request, PCoI Chairman Justice Chitrasiri questioned Mr. Palisena on the matter.
Justice: Can you identify the conversations relating to specific transactions?
Witness: I can do so if the commission gives me time
J: You were given sufficient time
J: Can you identify whether the system provides a mechanism to get those transactions
W: For that I need to go through with the IT department
The witness was of the view that they had provided all the phone conversations categorizing by the date. But DSG Gunathilake was in need of the incoming phone numbers and the time of the conversations.
J: Can you identify them?
W: I can do that but it will take time”
J: How long will it take you to identify those dealer conversations in relation to the required transactions?
W: One month
J: One month?
W- Its because I will have to go through all the phone conversations to do that
When the Justice asked whether the PTL’s stance was that they were not in a position to provide the exact dealer conversations as requested, the witness said they could provide them but it would take time.
“Does the system reflect the dialing number and the incoming number," the Justice asked.
The witness initially said it could not be done but however, he was of the view that there was another mechanism to identify them.
Then Justice Chitrasiri asked the witness whether the system could provide the outside phone numbers of the conversations. The witness said he had to check it with the system because most of the time conversations had taken place through tie lines.
J: Can you give the time duration?
W: Yes it can be got from the audio file
J: Can you get the time of the call
W: For that I will have to check the system
J: Is your system capable of providing the above details
W: The dates can be provided, but with regard to the other details I will have to check
Subsequently, the Commission advised the witness to provide the PTL’s stance on the questions put forward to him with regard to the dealer conversations and its recording system tomorrow in an affidavit.
Meanwhile, Mr. Palisena testified before the Commission for the sixth day on the secondary market transactions and about the capital gains earned in those transactions.
Counsel Arun Prakash led the evidence on PTL’s capital gains regarding seven particular Bond ICINs in the secondary market actual sales contending the way in which earlier it was calculated by Additional Director of CBSL IT Department, Wasantha Alwis.
The witness was of the view that he had calculated the capital gains based on a method different to what Mr. Alwis had used in calculating PTL’s net inflows.
He was of the view that it was the way of allocating the securities in the calculation that differs with Alwis’ calculation.
However, the Commission questioned the witness on his method of calculation. “From where did you get this method of calculation”, the Commission asked.
The witness said it was the ‘present value accounting standard.
Justice Jayawardena said that despite some inclusions of market factors considered in the method of calculations; there should be sufficient accounting standards to support the method.
Subsequently, the Commission advised the witness to provide on what standard he calculated its capital gains in secondary market transactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment