Sonia Gandhi Says Nationwide Herald Case Political, No Switch Of Cash Or Property Of AJL
NEW DELHI: Congress chief Sonia Gandhi on Friday raised the difficulty of the jurisdiction of court docket to take cognizance of prosecution criticism primarily based on a personal criticism filed BJP chief Subramanian Swamy within the Nationwide Herald case and stated there was no switch of cash or property of Related Journal Restricted (AJL) by Younger Indian.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Congress chief, stated Younger Indian took over the debt of AJL. He stated AJL’s property are nonetheless with it and there’s no switch. He stated it’s an alleged cash laundering case “the place neither cash nor property has been transferred” and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is requesting the court docket to take cognizance towards respondents. He requested if AJL debt had been taken over by industrial homes akin to Tatas or Birlas, would they be accused of cash laundering?
Singhvi stated there isn’t any criticism filed by an authorised particular person to analyze the case, and Subramaniam Swamy just isn’t an authorised particular person within the matter. Particular Decide Vishal Gogne listed the matter for listening to the arguments of Congress chief Rahul Gandhi after listening to the submissions of Singhvi on behalf of Sonia Gandhi. Singhvi stated there was a dire want for funds for AJL, and Congress revived it by giving a mortgage.
He acknowledged that there isn’t any case of cash laundering, as no cash or property has been moved. He argued that the court docket lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance as there was no criticism by an authorised particular person. He stated AJL has had properties throughout India for many years, and possession of any property has not been moved.
The Senior Advocate stated AJL’s debt was taken over by the Younger Indian, which is a not-for-profit firm. He stated no Congress chief will get any cash or property, and but cash laundering allegations have been levelled. He requested if possession of property is with AJL, how it’s a cash laundering?. On the outset, it was submitted that the criticism filed by the ED just isn’t maintainable as there isn’t any FIR. The inspiration for investigation ought to come back from an individual authorised to analyze as per regulation, the Senior Advocate submitted.
There isn’t any precise criticism, there isn’t any investigation by an authorised particular person, he added. He stated ED just isn’t right here to selectively choose up personal complaints that have not been probed. The safeguards will likely be gone if such a factor retains occurring, he added. It was additionally argued that there’s an 11-year hole between the Younger Indian resolution and the ED probe, and there may be an eight-year hole within the criticism of Swamy and the ED case. Singhvi stated when shares are transferred to Younger Indian (YI), the possession of the property nonetheless stays with the AJL.
“All that occurred when YI received 99% share of AJL. How is that this cash laundering?” he requested. Singhvi submitted there isn’t any FIR. After this solely, can the ED jurisdiction come into the image. He stated it’s a political case. “Think about there is not any FIR or a criticism by an company…We will not have such speculations and assumptions,” he stated. He stated ED has by no means accomplished this in 23 years – choosing up a personal criticism years later and requesting the court docket to take cognisance of it.
