ED Insists on Accountability for Money Laundering Suspects
Click to start listening
Synopsis
On April 8, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) contested the Karnataka Lokayukta's closure report in the MUDA scam case, insisting that those accused of money laundering must face justice. The ED highlighted its findings and sought permission to present additional evidence, asserting the importance of accountability in such cases.
Key Takeaways
- ED argues against easy acquittal for money laundering suspects.
- Case involves Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and family members.
- Supreme Court supports ED's right to challenge Lokayukta findings.
- ED seeks to present additional documents in court.
- Investigation reveals illegal land allotment practices.
Bengaluru, April 8 (NationPress) The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while articulating its position regarding the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scandal at the Special Court for MLAs and MPs in Bengaluru, on Tuesday, contended that the individuals implicated in money laundering should not be easily exonerated.
The ED has contested the Karnataka Lokayukta’s closure report by filing a petition in the Special Court overseen by Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat.
The Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah, has been identified as the primary accused in the MUDA case, with his wife, Parvati, as the second accused, and his brother-in-law, Mallikarjunaswamy, as the third.
The Karnataka Lokayukta had previously submitted a closure report indicating insufficient evidence against them.
Senior counsel Madhukar Deshpande, representing the ED, stressed, “The Karnataka Lokayukta has provided a ‘B Report’ against the four accused in the MUDA scandal. Consequently, the ED is entitled to challenge this closure report. The Supreme Court has asserted that individuals involved in money laundering should not be easily acquitted.”
The counsel remarked that the ED had communicated all investigative details concerning the MUDA scandal to the Lokayukta police, but those findings went unacknowledged, stating that the report provided by the ED will also be presented to the court.
The counsel asserted that the ED, as an autonomous investigative body, possesses the authority to scrutinize the Lokayukta's conclusions. Even if the investigative team submits a 'B Report' in the original case, the Supreme Court has, in specific instances, ruled that the ED can still challenge it.
The judge noted that, in this instance, the ED is not allowed to submit a separate complaint petition. However, the court mentioned that if the ED intends to provide additional facts supporting the complainants, it may do so.
The ED’s counsel sought the court’s permission to present 27 documents related to the case. The hearing has been postponed to Wednesday, April 8.
The MUDA case pertains to the alleged unlawful allocation of 14 sites to the Chief Minister’s wife under a 50:50 ratio scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of land bestowed upon her by her brother, the third accused. Allegations suggest that the Chief Minister’s wife lacked legal title to this 3.16 acres of land.
The Special Court mandated the filing of the PCR on September 25, 2024. The Lokayukta police in Mysuru had lodged an FIR naming Siddaramaiah along with his family members and others. The ED registered a case on October 1, 2024, and initiated an investigation under the PMLA.
The Lokayukta had submitted a closure report against CM Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvati, brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy, and landowner J. Devaraju.
The Karnataka High Court on March 7 annulled the summons issued by the ED to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife, B.M. Parvathi, and state Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh concerning the MUDA case.
The petitioner, Snehamayi Krishna, filed a complaint with the Commissioner of the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) on March 12 against senior IPS officers within the Karnataka Lokayukta, questioning the clean chit granted to the CM and his family.
The petitioner also submitted a writ petition to the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, challenging the single bench order dismissing his appeal for a CBI investigation into the MUDA case.
The ED objected to this closure report on April 2, and petitioner Snehamayi Krishna also filed a plea to the court questioning the Lokayukta’s investigation.
The investigative agency, in its objections, stated: “The investigation conducted uncovered illegal activities related to land acquisition, allotment, generation of proceeds of crime, and the routing/layering of the same undue influence in allotment.”
“The evidence/information gathered during the investigation under the PMLA, 2002, was communicated to the Lokayukta police, Mysuru, via a letter. Currently, the Lokayukta has filed a report in this regard. A review of the report shows that the evidence regarding illegalities in the denotification process of the 3 acre 16 gunta land at Survey number 464 of Kesare village that was shared by this directorate with the Lokayukta police has not been acknowledged in the report,” the ED stated.
The ED, in its petition, urged the court to reject the closure report filed by the investigating agency, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, in the interest of justice and to issue necessary directives deemed appropriate for investigation in the case.
