The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Kerala High Court Yesterday (May 10th) that it is unable to probe every aspect and allegation outlined in a first information report (FIR) filed by the police.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI: Before the Kerala High Court in the case of Vinod Mathew Wilson v. Union of India & Ors., the Enforcement Directorate (ED) made a significant assertion regarding its investigative scope. Highlighting its limitations, the central agency conveyed to the court that it cannot delve into all facets and accusations outlined in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the police.
The Court, concurring with the submissions made by the ED, underscored a crucial distinction concerning the agency’s investigative purview. Unlike other investigative bodies, the ED’s authority to probe hinges upon the classification of the alleged offense as a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Scheduled offenses, as delineated within the PMLA, encompass a spectrum of acts derived from various legislative frameworks. These acts, commonly referred to as predicate offenses, serve as foundational components for the perpetration of money laundering activities.
The legal backdrop to this discourse emerged within the context of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by Vinod Mathew Wilson, the State President of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Wilson’s PIL voiced apprehensions regarding the investigation into the 2021 Kodakara money heist, purportedly involving K Surendran, the State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
During the recent hearing presided over by a bench comprising Justices P Gopinath and Syam Kumar VM, counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate elucidated the agency’s approach. They indicated that the ED had already commenced an inquiry into the offense of money laundering stemming from the scheduled offense of dacoity. The examination of individuals involved was conducted with the aim of tracing the proceeds of crime.
However, the counsel for the ED emphasized a crucial limitation, stating that the agency’s scope of investigation cannot extend to all aspects outlined in the FIR lodged by the police. Citing the specific predicate scheduled offense of dacoity, they elucidated that the ED’s investigative focus is constrained within the parameters of this delineated offense.
“The petitioner (Wilson) is coming and making submission that there are allegations against numerous persons. In a case there will be many allegations. We cannot investigate into all the aspects that the police is alleging in the FIR because the predicate scheduled offence is dacoity,”
-the counsel emphasized.
Following the submissions made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding its jurisdiction, the bench concurred and underscored the agency’s specific role in investigating offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Notably, Justice Gopinath remarked orally, elucidating the ED’s duty as outlined in the PMLA. He emphasized that the ED’s mandate primarily revolves around attaching or recovering proceeds of crime, ultimately forfeiting assets acquired through such illicit means to the government.
“The ED’s duty under the PMLA is only to attach or recover proceeds of crime to the government i.e. to forfeit assets to the government which are created using proceeds of crime,”
–Justice Gopinath orally remarked.
With the arguments presented by both parties duly considered, the Court proceeded to reserve its verdict on the matter, signaling a meticulous deliberation over the complex legal nuances at play.
At the heart of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by Wilson lies a series of apprehensions regarding the investigation into the 2021 Kodakara black money heist, purportedly involving K Surendran, the State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Wilson’s contentions, as outlined in his PIL, pivot around certain crucial aspects allegedly overlooked in the investigative process. Notably, he pointed out remarks within the police FIR implicating Surendran in hawala transactions, which, he argued, were not being adequately probed by the ED.
The intricacies of the hawala system, characterized as an informal and illicit conduit for transferring funds clandestinely, further underscored the gravity of Wilson’s concerns.
Expanding the scope of his petition, Wilson underscored the potential applicability of offenses against Surendran under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In a bid to address these concerns, he sought intervention from the Central government and the National Investigation Agency (NIA), invoking provisions under the UAPA and NIA Act.
However, the legal saga took a contentious turn as counsel representing the ED, the Central government, and the NIA countered Wilson’s assertions. They filed their respective statements, arguing vehemently against the maintainability of the PIL. Their contention rested on the assertion that the petition bore clear signs of political motivation, lacking any substantive connection to the alleged crime or the enforcement of fundamental public rights.
Thus, the legal discourse surrounding Wilson’s PIL not only encapsulates the intricacies of investigative jurisdiction but also delves into the broader implications of political motivations in legal proceedings, underscoring the complex interplay between law, governance, and public interest.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Black Money
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
