The Supreme Court said Today (April 5th) it may quash a money laundering case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and his son Yash in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, saying there were no proceeds of crime.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today hinted at the potential dismissal of a money laundering case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and his son Yash in connection with the purported Rs 2,000 crore liquor scandal in Chhattisgarh. The Court emphasized the absence of any proceeds of crime, a crucial element in such cases.
“We have gone through the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) and the FIR lodged in the case. We find that there is no predicate offence and there are no proceeds of crime. If there is no proceeds of crime, then there is no money laundering. We will quash this complaint,”
-stated a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate.
Raju, however, contended that the probe agency possessed ample evidence, suggesting that if the Court were to nullify the ECIR, the ED should be allowed to file a fresh complaint and pursue the matter.
“Several orders were passed by the court in the matter like ‘stay hand in all manner’ and not proceed against the accused. These orders should be vacated,”
-urged Raju before the bench.
The bench responded by expressing its intention to dismiss the current complaint while acknowledging the agency’s desire to file a new one adhering to legal provisions.
Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing the father-son duo, argued for the dismissal of charges against other co-accused individuals involved in the case. The bench addressed Aggarwal’s plea, indicating that relief could be extended to co-accused individuals named in the current complaint, but those not named would need to pursue their own legal recourse.
When questioned about the status of other co-accused by the court, Raju requested time to provide a response.
Consequently, the bench postponed further hearings on the matter to April 8.
The ED, in its prosecution complaint filed in the special PMLA court, had labeled former IAS officer Anil Tuteja as the “kingpin” of the syndicate purportedly engaged in the illicit supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh.
Earlier, on January 8, the Supreme Court had instructed the ED to furnish both the ECIR and FIR forming the basis of the complaint filed by the probe agency in connection with the alleged liquor scandal.
In their writ petition, the Tutejas contested Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing its validity. However, the Supreme Court cited a 2022 verdict upholding the Enforcement Directorate’s authority to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests, rendering the challenge untenable. Section 50 grants the ED the authority to summon individuals.
The apex court noted that another aspect of the petition pertained to contesting the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), akin to an FIR filed by the ED.
On July 18, 2023, the Supreme Court directed the ED to refrain from any coercive measures in the case and ordered a cessation of actions against the father-son duo. During proceedings, the Chhattisgarh Congress government accused the probe agency of overreaching its powers, alleging an attempt to implicate the then Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel in a money laundering case linked to the alleged liquor scandal.
The government further alleged harassment of state officers by the ED, including demands for property details and threats of arrest targeting them and their families. According to the Congress government’s claims, 52 officials from the state excise department reported intimidation tactics employed by the ED.
The ED contended that the alleged scandal involved a network comprising high-level state officials, private individuals, and political figures, resulting in the generation of over Rs 2,000 crore in illicit funds between 2019 and 2022. The origins of the money laundering case trace back to a 2022 income tax department charge sheet filed in a Delhi court.
The federal agency asserted that bribes were solicited from distillers on a per-case basis for liquor sourced from the CSMCL (Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited), with country liquor sales remaining unrecorded.
Furthermore, the ED alleged that these bribes facilitated the formation of a cartel among distillers, ensuring a fixed market share.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Liquor Scams
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
