Mr. Raju is believed to have met nobody in the last two days. It is also possible that he might have handed over his letter to company officials before becoming incommunicado.
Some of the more serious penalties that Raju and others are likely to face under various laws are:
* Section 23 of the securities contract regulation Act 1956, that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to 10 years and fine up to Rs 25 crore. The adjudicating officer of Sebi is empowered to award such punishment to directors and management executives for violating the listing agreement by making false and inaccurate disclosures in the company's quarterly and annual results. The penalty is severe because of the enormous damage that the investors are liable to suffer on account of false disclosures.
* Section 24 of the Sebi Act 1992 that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to one year for infringement of any provisions of the law or rules and regulations, including fraudulent and unfair trade practices (FUTP).
* Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to seven years. The police may on their own or on the recommendation of the serious fraud investigation office (SFIO) invoke this IPC provision meant to punish those found to have falsified accounts "...willfully and with intent to defraud."
* Section 211 of the Companies Act that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to six months. The company law board is empowered to punish those who are found to have "willfully" failed to comply with the requirements of law relating to the annual financial statement.
Significantly, the job of the prosecuting agencies has been made easier by the damaging admissions made by Raju in his resignation letter to the board. Having taken responsibility for cooking the Satyam books to the tune of Rs 7,136 crore, it is just as well that Raju said, "I am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face the consequences thereof." For all his exertions in his resignation letter to save the skin of other directors, they have reason to worry because the Companies Act does not only hold the board to account for any such failure of due diligence, it also makes no distinction in the liability of executive and non-executive or independent directors. The onus is on them to prove the action they had taken to discharge their fiduciary responsibility.