After training its guns on T.N. Ministers V. Senthilbalaji, who is presently in Puzhal jail, and Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudy recently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday insisted on assisting the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in a disproportionate assets case pending against Fisheries Minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan.
Appearing before the Thoothukudi Principal District Court, Special Public Prosecutor for the ED, N. Ramesh, said that the prime accused person was a sitting Minister in the T.N. Cabinet and therefore, “the situation should not create even a shadow of public distrust in the handling of prosecution by the State agency.”
However, since the DVAC and the accused persons (including the Minister and his family members) had filed separate counter affidavits to the ED’s petition and questioned the latter’s locus standi to “interfere” in the ongoing trial, the Principal District Judge decided to hear all the parties on the ED’s plea on August 2.
In a petition moved under Sections 301(2) and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in April this year, ED Assistant Director S. Karthikeyan had said, the Madras High Court in the AIADMK versus State (1998) case, gave a right to a third-party to assist the prosecution and therefore, the ED must also be given this opportunity in public interest.
The Assistant Director also relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in J.K. International versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2001) and sought the permission of the Principal District Court to submit documents collected by the ED against Mr. Radhakrishnan and also to make written submissions in support of the prosecution.
The ED recalled that the disproportionate assets case against the Minister was registered by the DVAC on September 7, 2006 under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. The charge was that he had had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, when he served as Housing Minister during the 2001-2006 AIADMK regime.
The DVAC filed a charge-sheet against the Minister and six family members including his wife, son and brothers on July 19, 2013 and the trial court framed the charges against the accused on December 15, 2017. Thereafter, on December 22, 2020, the ED registered a Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002. It summoned the accused and recorded their statements under Section 50 of the PMLA besides passing orders for the provisional attachment of certain properties.
The ED claimed its investigation had revealed the accused persons had adopted a unique modus operandi of infusing unaccounted and unexplained cash into the bank accounts of various partnership firms. The ED also stated that the funds layered into the financial system, through the firms run by the family members, were subsequently advanced to various accused persons to acquire immovable properties from time to time. It alleged that the prime accused persons were unable to explain the source or prove the genuineness of such cash deposits.
“The Directorate has collected various evidences and recorded various statements to prove such modus operandi for depositing unaccounted income into bank accounts and acquiring disproportionate assets from such unaccounted money which are beyond the findings of the charge-sheet (filed by the DVAC),” the ED told the district court.
