The controversies involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), the firm facing allegations of money laundering involving former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and her husband P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the Exalogic pay-off case, have given way to legal and political challenges to the State government as well as investigating agencies.
The allegation that Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala, Health Minister K. Muraleedharan, and other politicians too had received money from the CMRL surfaced on Thursday as the State government was all set to issue a notification on the formation of a special investigation team to probe the findings of the Directorate of Enforcement against the three in the money laundering case.
Shone George, the BJP leader who released the reported pay-off list on Thursday, alleged that the government soft-pedalled Mr. Vijayan’s case and opted for a preliminary investigation rather than booking an FIR, as their names were also on the list of those who received funds from the company.
While the allegation against Mr. Satheesan and others was that they received money from the CMRL, Mr. Vijayan and his family members were accused of laundering the money using the alleged business deals of Exalogic, the now-defunct firm of Ms. Veena, with the CMRL. The names of the Chief Minister and others were reportedly mentioned in a diary seized from the officials of the CMRL. However, the ED had written to the State government that it had seized a diary from Ms. Veena in which the alleged details of hawala transactions were found included in her handwriting.
Though the ED had sought the probe on the ground that it had reportedly found the commission of a cognisable offence, legal options are limited for the agency to fix a time-frame for the State police to complete the preliminary investigation or force the registration of an FIR in the case.
The Keralam government is treading cautiously in the case involving the ED and the CPI(M) leaders considering its political ramifications, especially when the Congress had been complaining that the Union government was misusing investigating agencies for targeting Opposition parties.
The ED’s letter to the State police can be treated only as the sharing of information under Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on a cognisable offence, which the agency stumbled upon during the course of its investigation. The police can drop the case and decide not to register an FIR if it could not find the commission of any cognisable offences as alleged by the ED, legal sources indicated.
However, there exists the legal possibility of a third party approaching the High Court seeking directives to the police for an effective probe and to register an FIR, as in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam case (K. Athinarayanan vs The State of Tamil Nadu), though the decision of the High Court is under challenge before the Supreme Court, sources indicated.
The ED may require an FIR from the State police to take its probe against the CPI(M) leaders further in the event of an unfavourable verdict from the Delhi High Court in the CMRL’s petition challenging the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigation in the pay-off case.
An order quashing the SFIO investigation will lead to the natural death of the ED’s case as the agency had used the final complaint of the SFIO to initiate its probe in the money laundering case. The case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can sustain only on the legal premises that the money, which is the proceeds of a crime, was laundered by the accused. Once the agency fails to prove the crime, the predicate offence, the money laundering case too will go, the sources indicated.
The Delhi High Court is likely to consider the CMRL’s petition on October 13.
Published – September 25, 2026 07:00 am IST
