New Delhi, Jul 4 (PTI) – On Friday, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi described the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation into the National Herald case as "truly a strange" one.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sonia Gandhi, began his rebuttal after additional solicitor general S V Raju for the ED concluded his arguments on July 3 regarding the cognisance of the chargesheet filed in the case.
"This case is not just strange, it’s unprecedented," Singhvi argued. "This is allegedly about money laundering despite no property being involved, used, or projected. No property from Associated Journals Limited (AJL) was transferred to Young Indian, and no Congress leader received any money or property. Yet it’s being called money laundering," Singhvi contended.
The ED accuses Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, as well as the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, and others like Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda associated with Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The allegations suggest a fraudulent acquisition of properties worth over Rs 2,000 crore belonging to AJL, which published the National Herald newspaper.
According to the ED, the Gandhis held 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which allegedly acquired AJL’s assets fraudulently in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
Singhvi countered these claims, asserting that the move aimed to relieve AJL of its debts. “Companies routinely become debt-free through various legal measures. Here, AJL’s debt was assigned to another entity, resulting in a debt-free company,” Singhvi explained.
He emphasized that Young Indian was a not-for-profit company, "Meaning it can neither distribute dividends nor provide perks, salaries, or bonuses," Singhvi highlighted.
Singhvi stated that after Young Indian’s investment in AJL’s shares, the company only possessed rights over the dividends without any claim on AJL’s physical properties. "How can the Gandhis and Young Indian be equated to AJL?” he questioned.
Further criticizing the probe, Singhvi noted that the ED remained inactive for years, leading to suspicion as they only pursued a private complaint later. "Leaving National Herald in non-Congress hands would be like staging Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark," he remarked.
Singhvi accused the ED of seeking "criminal cognisance of a draconian act" against Sonia. He pointed out the 11-year gap between AJL’s restructuring in 2010 and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registration in 2021, highlighting an eight-year pause between a private complaint by Subramanian Swamy and the ECIR.
The presiding judge inquired whether the Congress party had the authority to write off the loan. Singhvi responded, stressing there’s no legal barrier against recovering debt. "If Tatas or Birlas took over AJL’s debt, would they face money laundering charges? Politics should not overshadow law to this extent,” Singhvi argued.
The proceedings are set to continue on July 5 with Rahul Gandhi’s rebuttal.
On July 3, Raju argued regarding the chargesheet’s cognizance, alleging the Gandhis were the "beneficial owners" of Young Indian, acquiring full control post the other shareholders’ demise.
The ED filed its chargesheet against the Gandhis and others under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which pertain to money laundering and its penalties.
Other individuals named in the chargesheet include Dubey, Pitroda, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian, and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)