Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The affidavit, articulated by ED’s Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh, sheds light on the repeated readiness expressed by the ED to commence the trial, which has been continuously thwarted by Balaji.
In a significant development in a high-profile money laundering case, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has accused former Transport Minister V. Senthilbalaji of deliberately delaying the trial process.
The ED’s stance was made clear in a counter affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court, emphasizing the necessity of a speedy trial over granting bail to the accused. The affidavit was filed in response to Senthilbalaji’s bail application, scheduled for a hearing by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on February 14, 2024.
ALSO READ:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Emphasizes- Use of Force as Last Resort in Farmers Protest
The affidavit, articulated by ED’s Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh, sheds light on the repeated readiness expressed by the ED to commence the trial, which has been continuously thwarted by the accused, allegedly due to his influential status.
The investigating officer, Karthik Dasari, highlighted in the document that
“Senthilbalaji’s pre-trial incarceration length is a direct result of his own actions, thus invalidating any complaints regarding the delay.”
According to Dasari, the former minister’s influence poses a significant risk of tampering with the evidence and intimidating witnesses.
Senthilbalaji was arrested on June 14, 2023, and has been in judicial custody since. The ED completed its investigation and filed a prosecution complaint on August 12, 2023, establishing Senthilbalaji’s central role in exploiting his ministerial position for personal gain. Between 2011 and 2015, Senthilbalaji allegedly demanded and accepted bribes for the appointment of drivers, conductors, and other positions within the government service.
ALSO READ:- Most Women Pregnant Outside jails in West Bengal Prisons: Supreme Court Told
The counter affidavit details the acquisition of illicit proceeds through criminal activities linked to the scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. It accuses Senthilbalaji of conspiring with his brother R.V. Ashok Kumar, personal assistants B. Shanmugam, M. Karthikeyan, and officials from the Transport Department to devise a scheme for exchanging cash for job selections. Despite Senthilbalaji’s denial of connections with Shanmugam and Karthikeyan, the ED’s investigation findings conclusively prove his involvement and role in the conspiracy.
The ED’s findings reveal a sophisticated operation of laundering proceeds from criminal activities, including layering and integration into the financial system through cash deposits and associates. This operation facilitated collusion with other suspects for further utilization of the illicit funds.
The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, High Court, and Sessions Court, has found prima facie materials to prosecute Senthilbalaji.
Notably, the Supreme Court criticized a compromise reached between the accused and the victims in a related cash-for-jobs scam, highlighting the undermining of justice, fair play, and the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court’s statement emphasized the inappropriateness of treating criminal investigations and trials as “friendly matches,” stressing the importance of conducting a full-fledged trial to uncover the truth. The ED is prepared to present oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the charges against Senthilbalaji and others involved in the scam.
Furthermore, the ED refuted allegations of manipulating digital evidence, assuring that all seized evidence, including thumb drives, has been in court custody throughout the investigation. The ongoing abscondence of Senthilbalaji’s brother, Ashok Kumar, also a co-accused, underscores the ED’s concern regarding the potential influence and threat the duo could pose to witnesses if bail is granted.
The counter affidavit serves as a strong appeal to the Madras High Court to deny Senthilbalaji’s bail application, advocating for the continuation of judicial custody to ensure an unimpeded trial process. This case marks a critical juncture in the fight against corruption and money laundering, highlighting the judiciary’s role in maintaining the integrity of the legal system against influential individuals.
Follow on Youtube
