5 months ago
2
Congress MP representing Sivaganga constituency, Karti P. Chidambaram, has approached the Madras High Court challenging the attachment of ₹90.08 lakh, from 2 of his slope accounts, by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) successful transportation with a wealth laundering probe initiated connected the ground of the Aircel-Maxis woody by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan admitted an entreaty preferred by the MP against a June 5, 2025, bid passed by the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) Appellate Tribunal successful New Delhi, which besides deals with statutory appeals nether the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The civilian miscellaneous appeal, successful the quality of a 2nd appeal, was entertained aft proceeding elder counsel Vijay Narayan, assisted by advocator N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, for the MP; ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh was permitted to instrumentality announcement connected behalf of the agency. The Division Bench gave 3 weeks’ clip for the ED to record its reply, and adjourned the proceeding thereafter.
The CBI probe
The tribunal was informed that the CBI had registered the First Information Report (FIR) successful the Aircel-Maxis lawsuit connected October 9, 2011, for offences nether the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint was related to a 2005 deal, which emanated from Malaysia-based Maxis Deal Communications for a 100% takeover of India-based telecommunications relation Aircel Limited.
A charge-sheet was filed connected August 29, 2014, against erstwhile Union Telecommunication Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his elder member and Sun TV Network caput Kalanithi Maran, and a fewer others. However, connected February 2, 2017, a peculiar tribunal successful New Delhi discharged the Maran brothers and 2 others from the CBI’s lawsuit arsenic good arsenic the consequent PMLA lawsuit registered by the ED connected February 7, 2012.
Subsequently, some the CBI and ED challenged the discharge by filing transgression revision petitions earlier the Delhi High Court, which, connected May 19, 2017, refused to enactment the discharge order. The ED connected July 18, 2017, went connected entreaty to the Supreme Court wherever the proceedings were inactive pending. In the meantime, the ED’s probe revealed the engagement of assorted individuals who had not been named successful the CBI’s charge-sheet.
Attachment order
Therefore, it passed a provisional attachment bid connected September 23, 2017, attaching ₹90.08 lakh from 2 slope accounts of Mr. Karti Chidambaram and different ₹26 lakh from the slope relationship of Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited. The provisional bid was referred to the Adjudicating Authority, nether the PMLA, for confirmation, and it was confirmed connected March 12, 2018, aft owed hearing.
Mr. Karti Chidambaram challenged the confirmation bid earlier the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal connected the crushed that helium was not named successful the CBI’s charge-sheet and that adjacent the ED had not completed its probe and filed a prosecution ailment (similar to a charge-sheet) against him erstwhile the provisional attachment bid was passed. He pointed retired that the prosecution ailment against him was filed lone connected June 13, 2019.
He besides argued that the ED ought to person filed the prosecution ailment astatine slightest wrong 90 days from the day of passing of the provisional order. However, his arguments did not chopped crystal with the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the ED was entitled to connect properties of individuals adjacent during the people of investigation, adjacent if they had not been named successful the predicate offence.
The New Delhi-based appellate tribunal arrived astatine specified a decision connected the ground of Supreme Court’s 2022 judgement successful VIjay Madanlal Choudhary’s lawsuit (considered an authorization connected PMLA) and hence, the contiguous entreaty earlier the Madras High Court.
