Court reserves order on cognizance of ED's complaint against Sonia Gandhi, others in National herald money laundering case

New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue court on Monday reserved order on cognizance of Prosecution complaint (Charge sheet) of ED against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in national herald money laundering case.
Special judge Vishal Gogne after taking clarification from counsel for Dotex merchandise and young Indian (YI) listed the matter for order on July 29. Meanwhile, the court has directed the investigating officer to be present with the case file for three days to facilitate a examination of the matter.
During the clarification, Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey questioned whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can label an RBI-registered NBFC as an entry operator. He further argued that while the ED claimed someone gave cash and subsequently a cheque was issued to Young Indian, this assertion does not find mention in the Prosecution Complaint (PC).
He further submitted that it is alleged that Dotex Knowingly assisted in acquiring the assets of AJL. There must be a foundational basis. Knowledge is an essential ingredient, Dubey clarified. He further argued that Dotex did not have the knowledge of Conspiracy. It aboard the train of conspiracy accidentally. There is no Conspiracy on the part of Dotex.
They (ED) said there was no security. It was an unsecured loan. If is my business. Can they direct me, Dubey questioned. He also submitted that We (Dotex) are in different compartment, they (other accused) are in different compartment. The cheque in Question was not signed by Sunil Bhandari. Loan aggreement was not signed by him, Dubey said.
When there are Two views, the view favouring the accused should be taken by the court. Summoning is a serious act, depriving a person of his liberty, Dubey concluded. Advocate Madhav Khurana clarified for YI. He submitted that it is alleged that If I (YI) sell in future, will earn money. it is a wrong, misconceived allegations. Assets of AJL are not sold. I don't get the ownership of asset, Khurana submitted.
It is also alleged by the ED that ED started to pay the interest after complaint of Swamy. He said it is wrong. I paid interest of Rs 15 lakh. No single Prosecution by the ED on the basis of private complaint since PMLA brought in, Khurana argued. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju opposed the submissions of advocate Madhav Khurana.
On July 12, In rebuttal arguments before the court ASG S V Raju has said that Young Indian was involved in money laundering and continues to be involved. Raju asserted that there were sufficient grounds to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint against all accused persons in the National Herald money laundering case.
In his rebuttal arguments on the second day, ASG submitted that the donors who donated to AICC were cheated and duped. "Who gave donation were given ticket," ASG referred to statement of the witness. He submitted that Young Indian was a bogey for money laundering. Neither of the donors was aware of Young Indian, nor its objectives.
ASG further submitted that some of the people gave donations on the instructions of senior Congress leaders. He also submitted that the Young Indian was not carrying on the activities in furtherance of its objectives. "Young Indian was doing money laundering, still doing", ASG argued. "Young Indian gave Rs 50 Lakh out of Rs 1 crore loan from Dotex," ASG further said.
On the point of recovery of debt, ASG argued that the right to recover debt is an actionable claim. The right to recover is a property. They (Accused) have the right to recover Rs 90 crores by paying mere Rs. 50 Lakh. "Why charitable institutions invest Rs 50 lakh to recover Rs 90 crore when it was not recoverable," ASG said, adding, "Young Indian gave Rs 50 Lakh to AICC and AICC gave the right to recover a debt of Rs. 90 crores." "You (accused) misrepresented the donors who donated to the AICC," ASG argued.
It was submitted by the ASG that Young Indian was formed on November 23, 2010. On December 13, 2010, Rahul Gandhi was appointed the director of Young Indian.
ASG submitted that without investing a single penny in AJL, the Young Indian became the owner of assets worth Rs. 1910 crore. He added that there was cheating with the other shareholders of AJL. It is a total fraud.
As per the balance sheet of Associated Journal Limited (AJL), there were assets of Rs. 2000 crores and a liability of Rs. 90 crores, ED said.
ASG submitted that debt recovery is a form of property. On the point of share acquisition, it submitted that the Allotment of shares constitutes the acquisition. In this case, shares were not transferred; instead, they were acquired. Later, these shares were transferred to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.
Regarding the role of accused persons, it was submitted that Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, and Sam Pitroda were directors of Young Indian. They were in charge of conducting the business of the company.
On the point of commision of an allegation by the company, ED submitted that when an offence by the company triggers section 70 of PMLA. Then every person responsible for the conduct of their business will be liable for the offence.
It was submitted that Sonia Gandhi, at the time when the contravention of PMLA was committed, was responsible and was in charge of Young Indian for the conduct of the business of the company.
At the time of payment of Rs. 50 lakhs, Sonia Gandhi, as a director, was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company.
The ASG Raju submitted that the payment of Rs 50 lakhs to AICC by Young Indian was made after Rahul Gandhi became a Director in Young Indian. He further submitted that when the contravention of PMLA was committed, Rahul Gandhi was incharge of the conduct of the business of Young Indian.
ED submitted that all the averments required are there in the Complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda. Cognisance needs to be taken, ASG submitted.
He further argued that Dotex Merchandise is merely an entry provider. Somebody gave cash and it gave a cheque of Rs 1 crore. No inquiry was made in relation to business, ASG Raju said.
It was further submitted that the loan was for one year. There was no guarantee taken, no collateral taken. The loan was recovered when a complaint was filed by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy. It was returned in 2015.
The loan was given at a 14 per cent interest rate. Rs 14 lakh was the interest for the loan of Rs one crore for one year. Interest was not debited or credited in the books.
On the point of jurisdiction, the ASG submitted that unless there is a specific bar, anyone can invoke the jurisdiction. Anyone can move to the court; a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had said.
He submitted that the accused might have committed an offence, which is sufficient to frame a charge. So the threshold of taking cognisance is much less.