Karti Chidambaram has moved the Madras High Court challenging the ED’s attachment of property in the Aircel-Maxis PMLA case. He argues the attachment is invalid, sparking fresh scrutiny of the investigation’s legal foundation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to a petition filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, who is challenging the attachment of his properties in the ongoing Aircel-Maxis money laundering investigation.
A Bench led by Chief Justice M.M. Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan issued notice to the agency and scheduled the next hearing after three weeks. The court’s direction came in an appeal challenging the legality of the ED’s attachment order, which was confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to 2006, when the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approved foreign investment from Global Communications Services Holdings Ltd., Mauritius, into telecom operator Aircel.
Years later, in 2011, the CBI opened an investigation into alleged irregularities in this approval process and filed a detailed charge sheet in 2014.
Karti Chidambaram stresses in his petition that:
- His name does not appear anywhere in the CBI’s FIR or charge sheet.
- Despite this, the ED, pursuing its own proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), provisionally attached his assets worth ₹1.16 crore in September 2017.
- The Adjudicating Authority later confirmed the attachment, leading to his appeal before the tribunal, and now, the High Court.
Karthi’s Argument
The MP argues that the ED’s attachment had no legal backing at the time it was confirmed. Under the PMLA, an attachment remains valid only if a prosecution complaint, equivalent to a charge sheet, has already been filed.
But in this case:
- The confirmation order was passed on March 12, 2018.
- The ED filed its prosecution complaint three months later, on June 13, 2018.
This gap, he contends, automatically renders the attachment invalid. As a result, he argues that the Adjudicating Authority’s confirmation order is “a dead letter in law.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On Karti Chidambaram
