Money laundering cases: Delhi HC asks ED reply on Karti Chidambaram's plea

New Delhi, Apr 11 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate's response on the plea of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking to defer framing of charges in two cases against him.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to the ED in the matter and asked the trial court to defer the arguments on charge to a day after May 29.

The lawmaker from Sivaganga constituency argued unless charges were framed in the scheduled offences, i.e., in the alleged Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases of the CBI, arguments on charges ought not commence in the related money laundering cases in the trial court.

"In my view, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice.. Reply be filed within a period of four weeks," the court said on April 9.

The order added, "List on 29.05.2025. In the meanwhile, learned special judge is directed to defer the arguments on charge to a date subsequent to the date fixed by this court." Considering the decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice Dudeja said prima facie, the discharge of the petitioner in the predicate offence would certainly have bearing on the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as there could be no offence of money laundering against him if he was given the relief in the CBI cases.

"Existence of scheduled offence and proceeds of crime being the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence are sine qua non for not only initiating prosecution under PMLA but also for continuation thereof," it observed.

On April 9, the court heard both the sides and said it would pass an order.

The ED counsel referred to Supreme Court decisions and argued the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was standalone and independent, and trial in such cases could not be stalled unless the accused was "finally absolved" in the predicate offence.

Karti challenged March 28 orders of the trial court, which dismissed his applications seeking the deferment of arguments on the charges against him.

Clarifying that he was not seeking any stay on the trial in the money laundering cases and his case was "only for charges", his counsel had emphasised that the trial court was scheduled to take up the matter on April 15 and it would be a travesty for him if the hearing continued there.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for Karti Chidambaram.

Chidambaram's plea said the foundation of the ED's cases was questionable because if an individual was discharged or acquitted in the scheduled offence or succeeded in quashing it, the money laundering offence could not be proceeded with.

The trial court, the plea said, failed to consider that to raise his defence of non-existence of proceeds of crime or non-commission of any scheduled offence, Karti would have to necessarily disclose his defence in respect of the scheduled offence case.

"The gravamen of the case is a part of the investigation in the alleged predicate offence and has to be established and proved in the prosecution of the predicate offence. Unless the same is proven, there can be no foundation for any offence of money laundering," the plea added.

The plea, filed through advocate Akshat Gupta, added, "Therefore, without a 'subsisting prosecution' in the alleged predicate offence where the above allegation is proved, at least prima facie, after taking of cognisance and framing of charges (if any), there is no basis for any allegation of money laundering of this alleged bribe amount." The ED registered a money laundering case against Chidambaram and others in the alleged scam involving the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in 2011 when his father P Chidambaram was the union home minister.

It registered its case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, taking cognisance of a recent FIR filed by the CBI in the same case.

The other case relates to alleged irregularities in the grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board approval in the Aircel-Maxis deal.

The approval was granted in 2006 when P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.

The CBI and the ED have alleged that as the finance minister, the senior Chidambaram granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity, benefitting certain persons, and received kickbacks. PTI ADS AMK

Source: PTI