Bengaluru:

A senior government official in Karnataka has filed a police case against two officials of the Enforcement Directorate, accusing them of forcing him to implicate the Chief Minister, a minister and a few others.

Kallesh B, additional director of social welfare department, Karnataka, has alleged that he was asked to appear before the Enforcement Directorate on July 16 in connection with the investigation into the alleged Valmiki scam.

He was asked to come back on July 18, bringing a few files.

After answering 17 questions, he was asked to get a file. Another official’s presence was also required to answer three questions. The officials asked him to come on July 18.

On July 18, the ED officials forced him to mention the names of Chief Minister, state minister Nagendra and others, Mr Kallesh has alleged in the First Information Report filed in the case. The officials, he alleged, had abused him and threatened to arrest him if he did not comply, he had said in his complaint.

Today, he approached the police at Bengaluru’s Wilson Garden Police Station, asking them to take action.

New Delhi:

The Enforcement Directorate has attached immovable properties spanning 88.29 acres and valued at Rs 300.11 crore belonging to M3M India Infrastructures Private Ltd in connection with an alleged money laundering case, the agency said in a release on Friday.

According to a release, the properties attached are in the form of land parcels located in Basharia village in Haryana’s Gurugram.

The ED initiated the investigation on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on allegations against Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the then Chief Minister of Haryana, Trilok Chand Gupta, then Director of DTCP, RS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (RSIPL), and 14 other coloniser companies, the agency said in its release.

The alleged case involves cheating various landowners, the public at large, the state of Haryana, and the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), by getting issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), and subsequently under section 6 of LA Act for the acquisition of lands of respective landowners, which compelled landowners to sell their land to said companies at a lower price than the prevailing price before the notification under section 4 of LA Act, the agency said.

The accused allegedly, fraudulently, and dishonestly obtained Letters of Intent (LOIs) and licences on the notified land, causing loss to the respective landowners, the public at large, and the state of Haryana and HUDA, while wrongfully gaining for themselves, the ED said in its release.

The agency’s investigation revealed that RSIPL, a company beneficially owned by Basant Bansal and Roop Bansal, promoters of M3M group, allegedly colluded with the persons mentioned in the FIR and unlawfully got approved licences for land measuring 10.35 acres for establishing a commercial colony, by classifying their case as “a case of extreme hardship” without legal basis.

Upon securing licences to establish a commercial colony, the promoters of RSIPL allegedly did not develop a commercial colony, which was a precondition for obtaining the licences. Later on, they reportedly sold the company’s shares and assets, including the said licenced land for Rs 726 crore to Lowe Realty Private Limited, an associated entity of Religare Group, the ED said in its release.

This alleged activity of obtaining the licenses illegally has resulted in the generation of Proceeds of Crime (PoC) to the tune of Rs 300.15 crore, which were subsequently allegedly diverted from RSIPL to the promoters of the firm into their bank accounts and to the bank accounts of their family members and subsequently utilized for operational and business expenses of M3M group companies, the agency said. 

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

Chennai:

The Madras High Court has reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate for overstepping bounds while investigating illegal sand mining in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan pointed out the federal agency could not claim jurisdiction since mining, illegal or otherwise, is not listed as a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The High Court therefore stayed proceedings against the accused sand mining contractors and directed the ED to release seized properties.

“We are of the opinion that unless information with regard to any case (as a scheduled offence) is registered, and such an offence has generated proceeds of crime, which is dealt with by petitioners, no action can be initiated,” the court said.

The order had been passed Tuesday. The court’s full judgement was released today.

This is not the first time the ED has been ticked off in connection with this case.

READ | “Completely Illegal”: ED Summons To 5 Tamil Nadu Officers Paused

In November last year the High Court stayed – for three weeks – the agency’s summons to five District Collectors. The court observed the ED had limited powers but did not pause the probe.

The agency had summoned the DCs of Ariyalur, Vellore, Thanjavur, Karur, and Tiruchirapalli.

Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam had sought to invalidate the summons, arguing the ED did not have unbridled powers and that its summons went against the spirit of federalism.

Claiming it had already filed police cases, and that it was willing to provide details, the state argued the ED ought to seek details only through it and that any investigation ought to be with its consent.

The Supreme Court, though, has been less inclined to interfere.

In February the ED moved the top court to challenge the stay on summons to the five DC. During the hearing, Justice Bela M Trivedi asked, “Why is the state troubled… what is its stake in the matter?”

The Supreme Court subsequently directed the five officials to appear before the ED.

READ | Supreme Court Setback For Tamil Nadu In Illegal Sand Mining Probe

Justice Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal called the state’s plea “strange and misconceived”.

The alleged sand mining racket – which the ED claims is worth Rs 4,000 crore or more, according to data provided by an expert from the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras – has been controversial for several years now, including when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was in power.

The AIADMK is now the main opposition party in the state.

Tax officials had said the miners’ illegal profit was routed into investments in other businesses, such as spinning and sugar mills, and hotels. Certain overseas transactions were also being scrutinised.

It has become a major political flashpoint in the southern state, and was leveraged by the Bharatiya Janata Party in February as it sought to make an impact during the Lok Sabha election. The BJP’s state boss, K Annamalai, warned, “ED will not leave who are involved in illegal sand mining.”

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court said on Friday that the power to arrest under the anti-money laundering law cannot be exercised according to the whims and fancies of the Enforcement Directorate officer.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, which granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case linked to alleged excise policy scam, said any undue indulgence and latitude to the ED will be deleterious to the constitutional values of rule of law and life and liberty of people.

“An officer cannot be allowed to selectively pick and choose material implicating the person to be arrested. They have to equally apply their mind to other material which absolves and exculpates the arrestee. The power to arrest under Section 19(1) of the PML Act cannot be exercised as per the whims and fancies of the officer,” the bench said in its 64-page verdict.

The bench said the ED officers acting under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot ignore or not consider the material which exonerates the arrestee.

“The legality of the ‘reasons to believe’ have to be examined based on what is mentioned and recorded therein and the material on record.

“However, the officer acting under Section 19(1) of the PML Act cannot ignore or not consider the material which exonerates the arrestee. Any such non-consideration would lead to difficult and unacceptable results,” it said.

The bench said the opinion of the ED officer is undoubtedly subjective, but the formation of opinion should be in accordance with the law.

“Subjectivity of the opinion is not a carte blanche to ignore relevant absolving material without an explanation. In such a situation, the officer commits an error in law which goes to the root of the decision-making process, and amounts to legal malice,” it said.

The bench made the observation as Mr Kejriwal has argued that the ED has not mentioned in “grounds of arrest” the exculpatory statements made by the witnesses in the case and has only considered inculpatory statements in which he was named.

The top court said a view accepted in the 2022 verdict of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which upheld the validity of PMLA, is that the order of arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA is a decision taken by a high-ranking officer.

“Thus, it is expected that the high-ranking officer is conscious of the obligation imposed by Section 19(1) of the PMLA before passing an order of arrest. We are of the opinion that it would be incongruous to argue that the high-ranking officer should not objectively consider all material, including exculpatory material,” it said.

The top court observed that a wrong application of law or arbitrary exercise of duty leads to illegality in the process and the court can exercise their judicial review to strike down such a decision.

“This would not amount to judicial overreach or interference with the investigation, as has been argued by the DoE (Directorate of Enforcement). The court only ensures that the enforcement of the law is in accordance with the statute and the Constitution. An adverse decision would only help in ensuring better compliance with the statute and the principles of the Constitution,” it said.

The bench said jurisdictional review permits review of errors of law when constitutional or statutory terms, essential for the exercise of power, are misapplied or misconstrued.

“Judicial review is permissible to check improper exercise of power. For instance, it is an improper exercise of power when the power is not exercised genuinely, but rather to avoid embarrassment or for wreaking personal vengeance. Lastly, judicial review can be exercised when the authorities have not considered grounds which are relevant or have accounted for grounds which are not relevant,” it said.

Underscoring that error in the decision-making process can vitiate a judgment or decision of a statutory authority, the bench said in terms of section 19(1) of the PMLA, a decision-making error can lead to the arrest and deprivation of liberty of the arrestee.

“Though not akin to preventive detention cases, but given the nature of the order entailing arrest – it requires careful scrutiny and consideration. Yet, at the same time, the courts should not go into the correctness of the opinion formed or sufficiency of the material on which it is based, albeit if a vital ground or fact is not considered or the ground or reason is found to be non-existent, the order of detention may fail,” it said. 

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

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.

Lucknow:

 YouTuber Elvish Yadav has been asked to appear before the Lucknow unit of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on July 23 for questioning in connection with the money laundering case related to the snake venom-rave party case, registered against him by Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida) police, said senior ED officials.

Earlier, the ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the snake venom incident, considering the significant amount of money involved in the racket in May this year.

M Yadav was arrested on March 17 and sent to 14-day judicial custody.

However, he was granted bail by a local court five days later.

A senior ED official confirmed that the agency’s Lucknow unit summoned Elvish Yadav on July 23 after he expressed his inability to appear before the ED on July 8, citing his foreign tour.

The official said Mr Yadav has been given relaxation and allowed to turn up later.

He added that Elvish Yadav’s close associate and Haryana singer Rahul Yadav, popularly known as Fazilpuria, was questioned for multiple hours at the ED Lucknow office on Monday.

Fazilpuria was questioned about the use of a snake in one of his popular songs.

Besides, Elvish Yadav’s other aides, Ishwar Yadav and Vinay Yadav, were questioned in the matter in the past.

On April 6, the Gautam Buddha Nagar police filed a 1,200-page chargesheet under the Wildlife Conservation Act against Mr Yadav and seven others in connection with the case, nearly six months after the FIR was registered.

The charge sheet describes how snakes were smuggled and how their venom was used at the parties.

While Mr Yadav had refuted the charges against him, calling them “baseless and fake,” police later dropped charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against him, stating that it was a “mistake” on their side.

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

Lucknow:

The Lucknow unit of Enforcement Directorate (ED) grilled Haryanvi singer Rahul Yadav alias Rahul Fazilpuria at its Hazratganj office on Monday for more than 10 hours, an Enforcement Directorate official said.

Sources said Rahul Yadav, 33, is a friend of YouTuber and Bigg Boss OTT season 2 winner Elvish Yadav

The Enforcement Directorate questioned the singer regarding the alleged generation of proceeds of crime and the use of illicit funds for organising rave parties.

Sources added that he will be summoned again.

The Enforcement Directorate had registered a money laundering case against Elvish Yadav in the rave party case where snake venom was allegedly served.

The agency had filed the case after taking cognisance of an FIR lodged against him in Noida last month.

The Enforcement Directorate sources said that the bank account details of Elvish Yadav as well as properties acquired by him are under the scanner.

The Gurugram police had recently booked Rahul Yadav and Elvish Yadav for allegedly using rare species of snakes and a .32 bore pistol in a music video.

Haryana’s Jannayak Janta Party had fielded Rahul Yadav from Gurugram in the Lok Sabha election but he lost to BJP’s Rao Inderjit Singh.

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

New Delhi:

A court here on Monday rejected an application filed by jailed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking directions to the prison authorities for granting two additional meetings with his lawyers through video conferencing.

Special Judge Kaveri Baweja noted that as per the plea, Kejriwal is facing around 30 litigations across the country and on the grounds of the right to a fair trial, he requires two additional meetings with his lawyers through video conferencing (VC) to discuss the cases.

“It is not in dispute that a similar application filed by the applicant (Kejriwal) seeking the same relief i.e. additional legal meetings with his lawyers was dismissed by this court vide a detailed order dated April 10, 2024,” the court said.

It said the present application disclosed no new or fresh reasons to take a view different from the earlier order.

“Counsel for applicant has failed to convince the court as to how the applicant is entitled to two additional legal meetings through VC on the same grounds which have been discussed and dealt with in the earlier order,” the court said.

It said during the arguments, Kejriwal’s counsel was asked to withdraw the application and to move a fresh application with additional or fresh grounds, if any, which the advocate refused.

“Thus, having considered the submissions made and the observations already made vide order dated April 10, 2024, I see no reason whatsoever to allow the application under consideration,” said the judge dismissing the plea. 

(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.)