Frequently asked questions
What is/was Getax Australia?
Getax Australia is an Australian company founded by the late Govind S. Gupta (G.S. Gupta) in 1997, a businessman of Indian origin. Until 2012, its primary business was the buying and selling of phosphate – an essential ingredient for fertilizers – though it regularly sought other business opportunities as well. The ethos of Getax Australia was to be a good corporate citizen, maintaining profitability while contributing to the communities in which it operated.
Describe the history of Australia’s treatment of Nauru before Getax became involved.
For more than 50 years, Australia stripped high-quality phosphate resources from 80% of the small country’s soil, leaving the Nauruan population with only a small strip of coastal land to live on. In the 1960s, for example, Australian phosphate traders paid Nauruans $0.20 AUD for Nauruan phosphate that they sold for $15 AUD on the global market, for a gross profit of 75 times its cost. Australia, joined by the United Kingdom and New Zealand, benefitted from unconscionable and immoral agreements wherein they divided 100% of Nauruan phosphate among themselves as far back as 1919.
Eighty years later in 1989, Nauru finally brought a claim against Australia before the International Court of Justice seeking payment for the decades of deplorable treatment of the island and its people. Indeed, Australia’s decimation of Nauru’s most precious assets – its phosphate and environment – was so complete, that there is no more fertile land left in the country today.
After generating billions of dollars in gross profit for its Australian farmers, Australia settled Nauru’s claim in 1993 for a cash settlement of $107 million AUD over 20 years. No country in Nauru’s situation would have agreed to such an unfavourable deal absent immense pressure.
With barely a population of 10,000 people, 70 to 80% of its land uninhabitable because of Australia’s 80+ years of strip mining, and no ability to grow its own food, Nauru had no leverage against Australia, a country with a population of 17.6 million (at the time) which was one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the region. Not only did Australia fail to pay what it should have paid Nauru, but it even added, in the settlement agreement, a denial that it bore any responsibility, stating that the payments were “made without prejudice to Australia’s long-standing position that it bears no responsibility for the rehabilitation of the phosphate lands worked out before 1 July 1967” – the year before Nauru gained independence from Australia.
What is Getax's history with Nauru? Describe the contributions that Getax made to Nauru, particularly in terms of economic development and infrastructure projects.
G.S. Gupta, founder and chief executive of Getax Australia, arrived in Nauru in 1997 to help rebuild the phosphate industry that had been decimated by Australia. Beyond phosphate, Gupta helped to rebuild Nauru by bringing sustainable business opportunities to the island. His efforts included providing loans to support initiatives like establishing the Nauruan national airline.
Mr. Gupta also brought his sons into the family business as directors when they were still in their teens and twenties. Reflecting Getax Australia’s philosophy of good corporate citizenship, the company, along with other Getax affiliates, provided loans to Nauru for infrastructure development. These loans filled a critical gap, as Nauru’s previous resource exploitation had destroyed its credit rating, hindering access to loans from commercial lenders or from the government of Australia.
For example, Getax Australia and its affiliate, Getax Pacific, provided Nauru with loans totalling almost $23 million AUD, which included funding for the purchase of an airplane, doubling its airline fleet from one to two. This loan was interest-free, with no profit-sharing or joint venture conditions. Getax Australia also offered unsecured loans for the rebuilding of Nauru’s processing plants. Gupta’s commitment extended far beyond financial support – his leadership and dedication to the island’s well-being led to his appointment as a special Nauruan counsel to Singapore by the Nauruan government.
What is the case Australia is making?
Australia has falsely claimed that Getax Australia and G.S. Gupta and his sons were engaged in a conspiracy to influence foreign officials to give it business advantages not legitimately due in its phosphate contracts with Nauru.
These allegations are inaccurate and defamatory, often stringing together unconnected accusations much like how a reality TV director might use selective editing to create a false story. At other times, Australia portrays payments as illegal by refusing to provide proper context.
In reality, Australia’s allegations, which arise from its incompetent, delayed investigation, ignore that any advantage Getax received stemmed from its added value and unprecedented investment in Nauru. Getax Australia is confident that a full airing of the facts, if it were possible given the circumstances, would fully exonerate Getax and the Gupta family’s good names.
Mr. Gupta also brought his sons into the family business as directors when they were still in their teens and twenties. Reflecting Getax Australia’s philosophy of good corporate citizenship, the company, along with other Getax affiliates, provided loans to Nauru for infrastructure development. These loans filled a critical gap, as Nauru’s previous resource exploitation had destroyed its credit rating, hindering access to loans from commercial lenders or from the government of Australia.
For example, Getax Australia and its affiliate, Getax Pacific, provided Nauru with loans totalling almost $23 million AUD, which included funding for the purchase of an airplane, doubling its airline fleet from one to two. This loan was interest-free, with no profit-sharing or joint venture conditions. Getax Australia also offered unsecured loans for the rebuilding of Nauru’s processing plants. Gupta’s commitment extended far beyond financial support – his leadership and dedication to the island’s well-being led to his appointment as a special Nauruan counsel to Singapore by the Nauruan government.
What is IPL, and why are its past dealings with Nauru so essential to understanding the flaws in the case against Getax?
IPL is a large Australian company that was Getax’s major competitor in purchasing phosphate during the time that Getax did business in Nauru. In 2003, Getax entered into a three-year agreement with Nauru for the purchase of phosphate. However, in 2005, IPL cut a highly publicized “win-win” deal in which it invested $6 million AUD in in-kind services to Nauru in exchange for a guaranteed 300,000 metric tonnes of Nauruan phosphate over two years. Notably, IPL would not have to pay a penny for any of the phosphate until it had recouped its entire investment.
Incredibly, IPL itself judged whether its in-kind services were “sufficient” and placed any and all liability on Nauru itself.
Furthermore, as a condition of the deal, Nauru would be required to first fund repairs of its mooring system. To do this, when it was cash poor and had no credit, Nauru had to turn to…Getax Australia for bridge loans in excess of $3 million AUD loan.
The result was a “sweetheart deal” for IPL, which received its guaranteed phosphate in exchange not for cash, but for in-kind services that it alone could judge the sufficiency of, and which put it in the driver’s seat in making decisions about Nauru’s own infrastructure, at the expense of its main competitor, Getax Australia. Getax Australia was sidelined, able to buy virtually no phosphate in 2005 or 2006 because of Nauru’s breach of its 2003 contract, which also harmed Getax Australia’s revenue and relationships with its end-market buyers, and forced it to make a loan of over $3 million AUD in order to subsidize IPL’s own lopsided deal.
But it was far from a win for Nauru, which was forced to sell almost all of its phosphate for those years to IPL while getting zero cash payments for $6 million AUD worth of phosphate as it handed control over its own infrastructure to IPL.
Notably, Nauru’s breach of its agreement with Getax Australia – which Nauru later acknowledged – harmed Nauru itself. It deprived the nation of cash and put the island at a disadvantage in terms of enforcement, liability, and even decision-making about its own infrastructure. Under the IPL agreement, Nauru was drained even further of its ability to sell its phosphate to generate cash flow, thereby exacerbating its desperate need for cash.
Why was the IPL/Nauru phosphate agreement never compared unfavourably to the Getax/Nauru phosphate agreement?
The disadvantageous IPL agreement, which cost Nauru revenue, cash flow and contractual stability, was anything but a “win-win.” A deal so disadvantageous to Nauru’s interest as its deal with IPL – in which Nauru simply gives up its phosphate in exchange for an in-kind investment, forgoes revenue and cash flow it would have made if it had kept to its previous contract with its business partner Getax Australia, and to do so, breaches its contract with its Getax Australia – was not a win-win deal for Nauru, as publicly asserted by IPL at the time.
By contrast, Getax’s contracts with Nauru were mutually beneficial for both parties.
Every agreement Getax made with Nauru was either preceded by or included an investment or contribution from Getax, totalling almost $23 million AUD. This included financing loans, cash advances, Getax-financed R&D to help develop alternative industries for Nauru, and the offer of financing and technical managers as needed by Nauru.
Getax consistently paid more than its competitor, IPL, and invested significantly more money in Nauru’s infrastructure – almost $23 million AUD – compared to IPL’s $6 million AUD.
The AFP has characterized monthly cash payments to Nauruan FPOs as improper, yet they only began after Nauru breached its 2003 agreement with Getax Australia — because those payments were intended to ensure that Nauru would honour its contracts with Getax Australia just like it honoured its contracts with IPL. Payments of this nature were both legitimate and legal under Australian law.
What are some of the clear deficiencies in Australia’s case?
In 2013, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) issued search warrants in this case. However, since then, the agency conducted very little activity, and only brought charges in 2020, nearly eight years later. Shockingly, they waited to act until after the 2018 death of G.S. Gupta, the founder, sole shareholder, CEO, and final negotiator and signatory on every contract. In other words, they waited until the most crucial witness, who could explain the relationships and details of various consultancy agreements and contracts, was deceased. This is in addition to the deaths of seven other defence witnesses during the Australian government’s years-long delay.
Furthermore, the investigation was plagued with many other significant deficiencies, including a failure to even interview key potential witnesses, thus ensuring the loss of this evidence for witnesses who died, and the degrading of testimony from surviving witnesses, whose memories will be tainted by bias, inaccuracy, and flaws so many years after the fact and without any record to refresh them.
These investigative delays and flaws were presented in open court by former FBI Director and former U.S. federal Judge Louis Freeh, as reported in the media.
Reckless delays and investigation flaws taint the AFP’s pursuit of a case that will indirectly squeeze even more money out of Nauru by aiming to extract the business proceeds legitimately earned by naturalized Indian Australian citizens.
How does the conduct of Australian authorities in this case compare to international legal standards for due process?
Australian law recognizes a right to a fair trial, which includes the ability to defend oneself without undue delay or prejudice. When investigators delay unreasonably, conduct a faulty investigation, and thereby irreparably harm defendants’ ability to mount a defence, the case must not be allowed to proceed to trial. In other countries such as the United States and many European nations, a case like this would never proceed to trial after such unconscionable prejudice and harm to the right to a fair trial.
Describe any concerns about potential bias or political motivations in handling this case.
In 2012, Australia revived its cruel, controversial policy of detaining asylum seekers in an offshore refugee camp in Nauru. In the following years, reports of rape, assault, and inhumane conditions emerged, with asylum-seeking children finally being allowed to leave Nauru in 2019, and public attention slowly receding to the background in the ensuing years.
The critical public scrutiny on Australia’s use of Nauru to inhumanely detain asylum seekers coincided with the years of delay in the Getax case. It is not unreasonable to infer that Australian authorities wanted to avoid further attention to its asylum scandal or its strained relations with Nauru during that time. This is consistent with the great number of redactions in discovery documents related to communication between the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the AFP regarding the Getax matter – an indicator which raises suspicions even further.
How have the false allegations hindered the ability of those involved in this case to mount an adequate defence or present their side of the story effectively?
The Australian Federal Police’s (AFP) years-long delay in this investigation has severely prejudiced Getax’s ability to mount a fair defence. This delay has created a situation where the key defence witness— Getax’s founder, sole shareholder, CEO, and key negotiator and signer of all its contracts, is dead and unavailable to testify. Furthermore, this prejudice is compounded by the deaths of seven other witnesses, including a key defence witness, Getax’s former legal advisor, and a former Nauruan official who publicly refuted the allegations of wrongdoing against him.
These crucial witnesses could have destroyed the prosecution’s allegations, provided context for the legitimacy of payments made, and contextualized the consultancy agreements. The AFP’s investigative delay from 2013 until charges were filed in 2020 means this critical exculpatory evidence is now lost. The right to a fair defence, including the ability to call witnesses, is a cornerstone of any just legal system. The Australian authorities’ unreasonable delay in this case has significantly undermined Getax’s ability to defend itself, raising serious concerns about the administration of justice.
This is in addition to the numerous flaws in the investigation, including failure to take key witness statements, and failure to conduct any investigation in Nauru itself.
What are the human consequences of Australia's drawn-out case?
Australia’s drawn out and baseless case has inflicted significant hardship on the Gupta family. Its unfounded actions include a series of unjust legal threats, such as an international arrest notice and an extradition request to Australia (which was denied). Furthermore, the Gupta family’s assets have been subject to wrongful seizure, and their reputation has been baselessly tarnished, directly impacting their business and family. These false accusations and gross negligence by the authorities inflict real and demonstrable harm on innocent people.
The Red Notice against GS Gupta’s Son Has Been Cancelled
Australia has brought wrongful civil and criminal actions not just against Getax Australia, but also against members of the Gupta family. After filing its deeply flawed criminal case against one of GS Gupta’s sons, it sought his arrest internationally via an INTERPOL Red Notice. Mr. Gupta appealed to INTERPOL, noting the flawed and delayed investigation that makes a fair trial impossible, as well as bringing abundant evidence about the political nature of the case.
INTERPOL agreed. In a decision dated _____, the Commission for the Control for INTERPOL’s Files issued a decision removing the Red Notice against Mr. Gupta, further underscoring the injustice of the Australian authorities’ claims against Getax Australia and the defendants in this matter. INTERPOL’s decision makes a powerful statement about the political nature of this case and about the inability of Getax Australia or the members of the Gupta family to get a fair trial in Australia.