Congress MLC Yathindra Siddaramaiah did not rule out the possibility of the ED issuing such a statement to influence the court, which is expected to shortly give a ruling on the petition to hand over the case to the CBI.
| Photo Credit: Murali Kumar K

Congress MLC Yathindra Siddaramaiah termed the recent tweet by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the probe against the alleged irregularities in the allotment of alternative sites by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife as ‘misleading’.

Fielding queries from reporters in Mysuru on January 19, Mr Yathindra said the ED’s statement on reported provisional attachment of immovable properties does not pertain to the 14 sites that had been allotted to Mr Siddaramaiah’s wife as compensatory sites.

The provisional attachment of immovable properties pertains to a different case altogether, but the ED has been made to deliberately issue a ‘misleading’ statement to make it look like the attached property belonged to Mr Siddaramaiah.

He did not rule out the possibility of the ED issuing such a statement to influence the court, which is expected to shortly give a ruling on the petition to hand over the case to the CBI.

Mr Yathindra Siddaramaiah added that the alleged irregularities in the allotment of compensatory sites under the 50:50 ratio scheme had taken place during the regime of erstwhile BJP government in Karnataka. Pointing out that the Chairman and Commissioner had been appointed by the then BJP government, Mr Yathindra said it was the BJP government that was accountable for lapses that had taken place during the period.

Social Welfare Minister H. C. Mahadevappa, who was present at the interaction, said the ED’s statement was part of efforts to tarnish the image of Mr Siddaramaiah.

When the probe did not find anything amiss in the allotment of compensatory sites to Mr Siddaramaiah’s wife in lieu of the 3.16 acres acquired by MUDA, the ED connected the matter to the alleged irregularities in the allotment of other sites, Mr Mahadevappa claimed.

“Our legal team is examining the matter. Issuing such misleading statements is not a healthy practice in democracy,” Mr Mahadevappa said.

New Delhi:

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) today conducted searches at the residence of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjeev Arora in Punjab’s Ludhiana. Officials said the raids were held in a money laundering probe case.

According to sources, Mr Arora, AAP’s Rajya Sabha MP, is accused of fraudulently acquiring land worth crores in the name of his company.

Reacting to the ED action, Mr Arora said he was “not sure” about the reason for the search operations.

“I am a law-abiding citizen, am not sure about the reason for the search operation, will cooperate fully with agencies and make sure all their queries are answered,” he wrote on X.

I am a law abiding citizen, am not sure about the reason for search operation, will cooperate fully with agencies and make sure all their queries are answered.

— Sanjeev Arora (@MP_SanjeevArora) October 7, 2024

The probe agency conducted raids at 17 locations across Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Delhi, including at the residence of realtor Hemant Sood.

Senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia attacked the ED, saying they had raided many leaders of his party but “found nothing”.

“Since this morning, the ED is raiding the house of Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajya Sabha MP Sanjeev Arora. In the last two years, they have raided (former Delhi chief minister) Arvind Kejriwal’s house, my house, (AAP MP) Sanjay Singh’s house, (former Delhi minister) Satyendra Jain’s house… nothing was found anywhere,” he posted on X in Hindi.

Mr Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, in the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. The ED then arrested him in the money laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR on March 9, 2023. He was granted bail in August this year.

Besides him, senior AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Sanjay Singh, and Satyendar Jain have also faced the ED heat. While Mr Kejriwal and Mr Singh have been granted bail, Mr Jain, who was arrested by the probe agency in May 2022, remains in custody.

Chandigarh:

In what could raise troubles for senior Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has sought a report from the Punjab Police’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) on the status of the investigation in the December 2021 drugs case, sources said today.

Mr Majithia, a former Punjab minister, was charged in the case in December 2021 and sent to jail in January 2022. He is currently out on bail since August 2022. The action against him was taken on the basis of a 2018 report by the anti-drug special task force (STF) into a drug racket in Punjab.

It is learnt that the probe agency ED has taken cognizance of the report of SIT and has sought details about the probe status, FIR, and the statements of witnesses.

The ED has also sought details of 284 bank accounts and income tax returns of his family firms and members. The central agency has also sought information about various land deals in question and the report of a financial expert.

Mr Majithia, 48, has long maintained that the cases against him were politically motivated, contending high-ranking police officers had already investigated them.

Hailing from a politically influential family, the Akali leader won from the Majithia constituency in the 2007 Punjab assembly elections for the first time. He then retained the seat in 2012 and 2017.

He lost from the Amritsar East assembly constituency after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) scored a massive victory in Punjab in 2022.

Mr Majithia, who is the brother of former Union Minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal and brother-in-law of Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal, has been a minister in the Akali Dal governments between 2007 and 2017.

New Delhi:

Making a strong case for his client, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi has said politics is writ large over Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal being arrested both by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI in the alleged liquor policy scam and that the approach taken by the prosecution is not one that would be adopted by “prosecutors or even persecutors”.

In an exclusive interview with NDTV on Friday, Mr Singhvi also claimed that the CBI taking the AAP chief into custody soon after he was granted bail in the ED case is proof that politics was at play and went on to coin a new term for this: “insurance arrest”. 

The Congress leader’s comments came hours after the Supreme Court granted Mr Kejriwal bail in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act being investigated by the ED. The chief minister will, however,  remain in jail because he is yet to get relief in the case filed by the CBI.

When it was pointed out to him that the accused have been arrested by both CBI and the ED in the past, a combative Mr Singhvi said, “You are absolutely right, but just because something happens several times doesn’t make it right.”

“Consider four dates and four facts just for yourself. You don’t need to be a lawyer. The so-called liquor scam starts with documents registered officially in mid-2022. Mr Kejriwal is interrogated for nine hours by the CBI in mid-2023, one year later. He is arrested by the ED in March 2024 after the elections are announced and then arrested by the CBI, when he is already in custody, in June 2024,” he said. 

The senior advocate argued that the main offence in the case was filed by the CBI and the facts and context in the cases by both agencies were similar, raising the question of why there was a need to arrest Mr Kejriwal separately.

“Is he a flight risk, is he running away, is he interfering with witnesses? Why did you need to arrest him in June? This is nothing but mala fide writ large, politics writ large,” he said. 

Pointing out that Mr Kejriwal was questioned for nine hours by the CBI in 2023 and never after that, he claimed the chief minister being taken into custody in June reeked of an “insurance arrest” because the agencies knew that the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was weak.  

“The CBI case is going on. In fact, we have a stronger case in the CBI case because there’s no flight risk. But the government knows, the prosecutor knows that the process is the punishment. So they’re delaying it, they do an insurance arrest. Now I start a ladder from the bottom, then I go to the high court and Supreme Court and get relief. But you have achieved your purpose. You have prolonged (the stay in jail) by a few weeks… This is not the approach of prosecutors, it is not even the approach of persecutors,” he said.  

Referencing the Supreme Court order, Mr Singhvi said the bench had also stated that mere interrogation cannot be “a need or necessity” for arrest.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court will today deliver its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money-laundering case.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, which reserved its verdict on the plea on May 17, will pronounce the judgment.

Mr Kejriwal, also the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief, was arrested on March 21 by the ED in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.

ALSO READ | Arvind Kejriwal Used Part Of “Liquor Scam” Kickbacks, Claims ED, AAP Refutes

He has challenged the April 9 order of the Delhi High Court that had upheld his arrest in the case.

The high court had upheld the 55-year-old politician’s arrest in the case, saying there was no illegality about it and that the central probe agency was left with “little option” after he skipped repeated summonses and refused to join the investigation.

The Supreme Court had on April 15 sought a response from the central probe agency on his plea challenging his arrest.

Arvind Kejriwal was earlier granted 21-day interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 10 to campaign for the Lok Sabha polls. He was directed to surrender on June 2, a day after the last phase of the seven-phased elections was scheduled to end.

He was then granted bail by a trial court in Delhi on June 20 in the case. However, the ED moved the Delhi High Court the next day and contended that the trial court’s order granting him bail was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “wrong-sided” and that the findings were based on irrelevant facts.

The high court on June 21 imposed an interim stay on the trial court’s bail order till the passing of an order on ED’s application for interim relief. The high court on June 25 also passed a detailed order staying the trial court order.

ALSO READ | Victim Of Witch-Hunt, Falsely Implicated: Arvind Kejriwal In Delhi High Court

Five days later, he was arrested by the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the corruption case related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

The Delhi Liquor Policy Case

The central probe agencies have claimed that irregularities were committed while modifying the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22 and that undue favours were extended to licence holders.

The Delhi government brought in a new policy for liquor sellers in the national capital in November 2021. The Kejriwal-led government, as part of the new policy, stopped government outlets from selling liquor and allowed private parties to apply for licence to run stores.

It said the policy would help stop black marketing, increase the Delhi government’s revenue, and benefit customers.

The Delhi government, however, later scrapped the new liquor policy and reverted to the old one.

New Delhi:

Actor Jacqueline Fernandez has been summoned by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.

Sukesh Chandrashekhar has been accused of cheating high-profile people including former Fortis Healthcare promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh’s wife Aditi Singh.

The ED had alleged that Sukesh Chandrashekhar used these “proceeds of crime” or illegal money to purchase gifts for Ms Fernandez.

Investigators have said Jacqueline Fernandez knew about Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s involvement in criminal cases and that he was married, but she chose to overlook them and made financial transactions with him.

New Delhi:

The Enforcement Directorate has filed a chargesheet and also attached assets worth more than Rs 4 crore of former Jharkhand rural development minister Alamgir Alam, his ex personal secretary and the aide’s domestic help as part of a money laundering investigation.

In a statement on Saturday, the federal agency said it has issued a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on July 4 against Alamgir Alam, his former PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Lal’s wife Reeta Lal and his domestic help Jahangir Alam.

The cumulative value of all these assets recorded under the attachment is Rs 4.42 crore, it said.

A chargesheet against these accused, except Reeta Lal, was also filed before a special PMLA court in Ranchi on Thursday, the agency said.

Alamgir Alam, a Congress politician and former rural development minister, apart from Lal and Jahangir Alam were arrested by the ED in this case.

The ED had raided Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir Alam on May 6 and recovered a total Rs 32.2 crore from a flat in the name of the latter. The total cash seizure of cash in this case is Rs 37.55 crore apart from a four-wheeler and two-wheeled vehicle each, jewellery and digital devices.

The agency had said the probe pertains to alleged irregularities in the state rural development department that was once headed by Alamgir Alam.

Probe found, the ED claimed, that a “commission of 3.2 per cent of the total tender value is taken from the contractors for tender allocation which is distributed in a mechanised manner from top to bottom in the rural works department, government of Jharkhand which also includes the commission of around 1.5 per cent for the minister (former) Alamgir Alam.” 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

In a development concerning the alleged Rs 25,000-crore Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (MSCB) scam, the Mumbai police and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) are at loggerheads over the closure report filed before a court here.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the city police on Thursday opposed the central agency’s plea against closing the case, citing that the apex cooperative bank did not suffer any unfair loss due to the purported fraud.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar was named as an accused in the original case registered by the EOW.

While the police sought to close the case as they found no significant loss to the bank, the ED intervened, expressing concerns that accepting the closure report would impact their ongoing money laundering investigation linked to the scam.

The ED has already filed prosecution complaints and supplementary chargesheets in the case, emphasising the interconnected nature of the investigations.

The EOW filed a written submission in the court in which they rebuffed the ED’s intervention, noting that a similar plea had been rejected previously by a special court for cases involving MPs and MLAs.

The timeline of events includes the police filing a closure report in September 2020, which was initially accepted by the court.

However, further investigation was initiated in October 2022 based on protest petitions and the ED’s involvement.

The EOW moved to close the case again in March this year, asserting that no unfair losses were incurred by the bank due to the alleged fraud.

The FIR, which followed a High Court order in August 2019, alleged that loans of several thousand crore rupees obtained by sugar cooperatives, spinning mills and other entities from district and cooperative banks were diverted and not repaid.

Lodged under various sections including criminal breach of trust and cheating, the FIR named  NCP leader Ajit Pawar as an accused with over 70 others, who served as directors of the bank during the relevant period.

The allegations outlined a loss of Rs 25,000 crore to the Maharashtra government between 2007 and 2017, pointing to violations of banking regulations and RBI guidelines in loan disbursements to sugar mills and the undervalued sale of defaulting businesses’ assets.

A former judge, appointed as an authorised officer by the cooperative commissioner, concluded “there was no unfair loss to the bank due to the loans given to the factories (sugar mills),” and “the bank was recovering the amount from the factories by legal means”, the closure report said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

 The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the trial court judge was in a “hurry” and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise scam.

The federal probe agency said the June 20 order of the trial court granting regular bail to Mr Kejriwal was “perverse” for non-compliance of prerequisite mandatory conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A vacation bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SVN Bhatti took on record the Enforcement Directorate’s reply affidavit filed in Mr Kejriwal’s plea challenging the interim stay granted by the Delhi High Court on June 21.

The bench also allowed Mr Kejriwal to withdraw his plea after senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for him, said he would file a substantial appeal as the high court has pronounced the final order on June 25, staying the bail order.

The top court granted liberty to Mr Kejriwal to file the substantial appeal.

In its affidavit, the ED pointed out that section 45 of the PMLA envisages two mandatory conditions — public prosecutor be given the opportunity to oppose bail and where the public prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court has to satisfy itself that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“In the instant case, it is the specific ground raised by the prosecuting agency with specific and concise averments showing that the judge (of trial court) was in a hurry and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the Additional Solicitor General to oppose the bail,” it said while seeking to set aside the June 20 order.

The agency said money laundering being a specific and serious offence, the requirements under the PMLA override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrpC) in case of a grant or refusal of bail.

It added the court considering an application for bail must record its satisfaction which should be based on a belief formed by the court that the accused “is not guilty of such offence”.

“This would necessarily mean an examination of record, investigation papers, complaint filed etc. since it is only on perusal of such record that the court can reach a valid conclusion of the accused being not guilty of the offence of money laundering,” it said.

“If any of the above referred pre-requisite mandatory conditions are not complied with, the order would be in non-compliance of the mandate of section 45 of the Act and would also be perverse only on that ground. The perversity can also be on other grounds other than non-compliance with mandatory conditions,” the agency said.

The ED said it is not a matter of mere contention of the prosecuting agency but an admitted fact that the trial court judge did not examine the record of the case despite specifically requested by the prosecuting agency.

“Admitted part in the impugned order itself prima facie but clearly reflects non-compliance with mandatory conditions stipulated under section 45 of the Act,” it said.

The ED pointed out that during the bail hearing before the trial court on June 20, the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju was continuously asked to cut short his arguments by the trial court judge.

Even the impugned order reflects that the order has been passed hurriedly and admittedly without perusing the record of the case, the ED said.

“It is true that the expression ‘opportunity of hearing’ may not be capable of being defined based upon any particular time limit since it would depend upon the facts of each case

“However, undisputed facts stated in the petition regarding the court requiring the Additional Solicitor General to cut short his arguments and the order itself reflecting the fact that the judge chose not to go into the record shows complete non-compliance with the mandatory prerequisite contained in section 45 of the Act,” it said.

The agency added that all these facts show that even in addition to non-compliance of mandatory conditions under section 45 of the PMLA, the bail order is otherwise perverse both on facts and in law and deserves to be set aside.

Earlier on Wednesday, a Delhi court allowed the CBI to formally arrest Mr Kejriwal in connection with the alleged excise scam.

On Tuesday, the high court stayed the trial court order granting Mr Kejriwal bail in the case and held that the lower court did not “appropriately appreciate” the material placed before it by the Enforcement Directorate.

The AAP leader was arrested on March 21 by the ED and granted regular bail by the trial court on June 20.

In its bail order, the trial court held that prima facie Kejriwal’s guilt was yet to be established and that the ED had failed to furnish direct evidence linking him to the proceeds of crime in the money laundering case.

The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving its formulation and execution.

According to the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), irregularities were committed while modifying the policy and undue favours were extended to the licence holders.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The ED said on Friday that it seized Rs 19 lakh cash apart from a “large number” of property documents in the name of Benami persons during raids on premises linked to BRS MLA Gudem Mahipal Reddy and his businessman brother Gudem Madhusudan Reddy in and around Hyderabad.

The raids were launched on Thursday at about ten locations as part of a money laundering investigation linked to alleged illegal mining.

The money laundering case stems from an FIR of the Telangana Police against a company Santhosh Sand and Granite Supply located in Patancheru, Hyderabad and promoted by Gudem Madhusudan Reddy.

The premises of G Madhusudan Reddy, G Mahipal Reddy, their company and others were searched, the central agency said in a statement.

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) party is headed by former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao.

Search operations led to the seizure of “unaccounted” cash of Rs 19 lakh along with a large number of property documents in the names of unrelated persons who are suspected to be “benamis” of the accused persons, the Enforcement Directorate said.

Mobile phones “containing evidence related to cash dealings” were also seized, it said.

Some bank locker keys were recovered and examination of these lockers is expected to furnish more evidence, it said.

The accused firm, according to the ED, was found to have excavated and transported an excess quantity of 11,98,743 CBM of building stone and road metal within the quarry lease permitted area and 10,11,672 CBM of material beyond the permitted area (on encroached government land measuring 4.37 hectares).

In this process, the agency alleged, the accused “illegally amassed” around Rs 300 crore by sale of illegally excavated material and also evaded a royalty amount of Rs 39.08 crore due to the government.

“The sale proceeds of illegally excavated material were deliberately not reported in banking transactions and books of accounts and the transactions were suspected to have been carried out in cash.

“The proceeds of crime in the form of cash were laundered by the accused and were invested in real estate and other activities,” the ED claimed. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)