India News | ED Opposes in Delhi HC Karti Chidambaram's Plea to Defer Charges in Money Laundering Cases
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday opposed in the Delhi High Court pleas by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram for deferring framing of charges in two cases against him.
New Delhi, Apr 9 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday opposed in the Delhi High Court pleas by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram for deferring framing of charges in two cases against him.
His counsel argued unless charges were framed in the scheduled offences, i.e., in the alleged Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases of the CBI, arguments ought not commence in the related money laundering cases in the trial court.
The ED counsel, however, referred to Supreme Court decisions and argued the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was standalone and independent, and trial in such cases could not be stalled unless the accused was "finally absolved" in the predicate offence.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the arguments at length and said he would pass an order in the matter.
Chidambaram challenged March 28 orders of the trial court, which dismissed his applications seeking the deferment of arguments on the charges against him.
His counsel on Wednesday clarified that he was not seeking any stay on the trial in the money laundering cases and his case was "only for charges".
"The matter is coming up for argument on April 15. It would be a travesty for him to continue especially when nothing was happening in the predicate offence," he said.
The ED counsel contended the petitioner was "virtually" seeking a stay on the trial and he was free to argue against the framing of charges in the trial court.
"Only when accused is finally absolved will you get the benefit of predicate offence. Only argument on charge will happen (in trial court). They will get an opportunity to show why charges should not be framed," the ED counsel said.
Chidambaram's plea said the foundation of the ED's cases was questionable because if an individual was discharged or acquitted in the scheduled offence or succeeded in quashing it, the money laundering offence could not be proceeded with.
It said the trial court failed to consider that to raise his defence of non-existence of proceeds of crime or non-commission of any scheduled offence, Karti would have to necessarily disclose his defence in respect of the scheduled offence case.
"The gravamen of the case is a part of the investigation in the alleged predicate offence and has to be established and proved in the prosecution of the predicate offence. Unless the same is proven, there can be no foundation for any offence of money laundering," the plea added.
The plea, filed through advocate Akshat Gupta, added, "Therefore, without a 'subsisting prosecution' in the alleged predicate offence where the above allegation is proved, at least prima facie, after taking of cognisance and framing of charges (if any), there is no basis for any allegation of money laundering of this alleged bribe amount."
The ED registered a money laundering case against Chidambaram and others in the alleged scam involving the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in 2011 when his father P Chidambaram was the Union home minister.
It registered its case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, taking cognisance of a recent FIR filed by the CBI in the same case.
The other case relates to alleged irregularities in the grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board approval in the Aircel-Maxis deal.
The approval was granted in 2006 when P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.
The CBI and the ED have alleged that as the finance minister, P Chidambaram granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity, benefitting certain persons, and received kickbacks.
(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)