The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering over the fraudulent takeover of properties valued at over Rs 2,000 crore belonging to AJL, which published the National Herald newspaper.
ED alleges Gandhis held the majority 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which fraudulently usurped assets of AJL, in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
Referring to the income tax department’s purported statement, Young Indian’s counsel on Monday asked, “If two arms of the government are taking a different stance, how is the offence possible?”
He argued that the complaint “was covered with absurdities” and had “inherently improbable allegations”.
“The ED was statutorily required to test the veracity of the allegations. Not even a superficial probe was conducted. The complaint is not by a public servant but by a private citizen. How does Swamy come to the figure of Rs 2,000 crore?” the counsel further asked. The lawyer pointed out that according to the income tax department Rs 90 crore loan was a sham transaction and monies never flew. Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, appearing for another accused Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, said the ED “wrongly proceeded” to file the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) in the absence of a registered copy of the complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.
He argued certain documents in the case, including those regarding repayment of loan, interest charged on it, and others, were suppressed by the agency.
“ED had proceeded wrongly in this case, as they had proceeded without obtaining certified copy of the complaint (by Subramanian Swamy) in the predicate offence, while registering the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on June 30, 2021,” Dubey argued.
He continued, “One could be the best chef in the country but one could not possibly make biryani without rice. The approach of the ED was to miss the trees for the woods.”
Dubey said the agency took different stands while defining proceeds of crime, at different stages.
Counsel for Dotex, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian on Monday refuted ED’s arguments on the point of cognisance of the chargesheet against them.
Gandhis too have previously contested the ED’s claims.
Pitroda’s counsel said his client, now based in Chicago, hadn’t been ascribed a specific role for the alleged offence and he did “everything within the ambit of the law”.
“It is alleged that I indirectly tried to gain properties of AJL. This is not tenable because shareholding does not confer right to property. My credentials and conditions should be considered. There was a scheme to revive the properties of AJL; to keep the publication alive. Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on me alleged offence,” the counsel argued.
Suman Dubey’s counsel, on the other hand, argued the complaint did not disclose generation of proceeds of crime.
“It is alleged that the letter by which the loan was sought was signed by Suman Dubey. I do not know the genesis of Dotex Merchandise. At the time when the laon was taken, it was a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC), permitted by the RBI,” he argued.
Calling it a “fallacious case”, the counsel said, “Everything that AJL and Young Indian did were within their sovereign functions. There is no corporate veil to be pierced. Every aspect of the transaction; the conduct of AJL and Young India; is in public domain.”
The arguments on behalf of Dotex would continue on July 8.
The ED chargesheeted Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others under Sections 3 (money laundering) and 4 (punishment for money laundering) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
