Latest news with #ASGRaju
India Gazette
05-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Wherever Congress sees land, it grabs that through corruption": BJP's Poonawalla over National Herald Case
New Delhi [India], July 5 (ANI): BJP National Spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla launched a scathing attack on the Congress party over the National Herald case, alleging it exemplifies the party's involvement in land-related corruption. Speaking to ANI, Poonawalla claimed, 'The National Herald scam is proof of how the Congress party is connected to the land. Wherever Congress sees land, be it the Jija ji scam, MUDA scam, or National Herald scam, it grabs that land through corruption.' Poonawalla further alleged that properties worth Rs 2,000 crore, which he claimed belonged to freedom fighters and the people of the country, were acquired by Congress through a special purpose vehicle named Young Indians for a mere Rs 50 lakh. 'In the case of National Herald, property worth two thousand crores, which belonged to the freedom fighters, belonged to the people of the country. By creating a special purpose vehicle named Young Indians and paying Rs 50 lakh, the entire property worth two thousand crores was taken. Now, when the looters are being asked to return, these people are playing the victim card...,' he added. On July 2, Delhi's Rouse Avenue court raised certain queries to the ED about the shareholding of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and whether the Congress party was a victim, as It had given a loan to AJL. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted that there was a conspiracy to siphon off the assets of AJL, a company with assets worth Rs 2000 crore, a fact known to Congress leaders. Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard the arguments at length for nearly three hours and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3. The ED filed a prosecution complaint (charge sheet) against seven persons: Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex, and Sunil Bhandari. The Congress provided a loan of Rs. 90.25 crore to AJL, which had no means to repay despite holding assets worth Rs. 2000 crores, ASG Raju submitted. Raju alleged that the accused aimed to usurp AJL, with its Rs. 2000 crore assets, by creating Young Indian, a company controlled by the Gandhis. The ED argued that Young Indian acquired AJL for just Rs. 50 lakh in exchange for the Rs. 90 crore loan provided by the Congress. The ED further stated that the accused firm, Dotex, gave a Rs. 1 crore loan to Young Indian, out of which Rs 50 lakh was paid to the All India Congress Committee (AICC). Consequently, Young Indian became the owner of AJL for Rs 50 lakh. ASG Raju argued that a company with an asset value of even Rs 5 lakh became the owner of a company with Rs 2000 crore in assets, emphasising the absurdity of the transaction. Despite AJL's Rs 2,000 crore in assets, it struggled to manage its daily affairs. Raju argued that any prudent person would have sold assets to repay the Rs 90 crore loan, which was insignificant compared to the company's asset value. The ASG alleged that the AICC conspired to usurp AJL's assets through Young Indian, created to siphon off Rs 2000 crore in exchange for the Rs 90 crore loan. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju questioned why the All India Congress Committee (AICC) had given another loan to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) when the company was unable to repay the earlier loan, asking why a prudent person would do so. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi wanted to take over AJL, a company with assets worth Rs. 2000 crores. (ANI)
Mint
03-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
National Herald case: 'Congress was aware,' ED alleges conspiracy to take over ₹2,000 cr AJL firm
While hearing the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) arguments in the National Herald money laundering case, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi wanted to know more about who owns shares in Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and whether the Congress party could be considered a victim. To this, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted that there was a conspiracy to siphon off the assets of AJL, a company with assets worth ₹ 2000 crore, and that Congress leaders were aware of this. The ED filed a charge sheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex, and Sunil Bhandari. ASG Raju noted, the Congress provided a loan of Rs90.25 crore to AJL, which had no means to repay despite holding assets worth ₹ 2000 crores. Raju alleged that the accused tried to take overAJL by setting up a new company called Young Indian, which was controlled by the Gandhi family. The ED said Young Indian got control of AJL for just ₹ 50 lakh, in return for a ₹ 90 crore loan given to AJL by the Congress party. The ED further stated that the accused firm, Dotex, gave a ₹ 1 crore loan to Young Indian, out of which ₹ 50 lakh was paid to the All India Congress Committee (AICC). Consequently, Young Indian became the owner of AJL for Rs. 50 lakh. ASG Raju argued how can a company with less than ₹ 5 lakh to take over another company holding assets worth ₹ 2,000 crore. He pointed absurdity of the transaction. Despite AJL's ₹ 2000 crore assets, it struggled to manage daily affairs. Raju argued that a sensible person would have sold some of those assets to clear the ₹ 90 crore loan, which was small in comparison to the company's total worth. The ASG alleged that the AICC conspired to usurp AJL's assets through Young Indian, created to siphon off ₹ 2000 crore in exchange for the ₹ 90 crore loan. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju questioned why the All India Congress Committee (AICC) gave another loan to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) when the company was unable to repay the earlier loan, asking why a prudent person would do this. Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard the arguments at length for nearly three hours and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3.
Mint
03-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
National Herald case: 'Congress was aware,' ED alleges conspiracy to take over ₹2,000 cr AJL firm
While hearing the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) arguments in the National Herald money laundering case, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi wanted to know more about who owns shares in Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and whether the Congress party could be considered a victim. To this, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted that there was a conspiracy to siphon off the assets of AJL, a company with assets worth ₹ 2000 crore, and that Congress leaders were aware of this. The ED filed a charge sheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex, and Sunil Bhandari. ASG Raju noted, the Congress provided a loan of Rs90.25 crore to AJL, which had no means to repay despite holding assets worth ₹ 2000 crores. Raju alleged that the accused tried to take overAJL by setting up a new company called Young Indian, which was controlled by the Gandhi family. The ED said Young Indian got control of AJL for just ₹ 50 lakh, in return for a ₹ 90 crore loan given to AJL by the Congress party. The ED further stated that the accused firm, Dotex, gave a ₹ 1 crore loan to Young Indian, out of which ₹ 50 lakh was paid to the All India Congress Committee (AICC). Consequently, Young Indian became the owner of AJL for Rs. 50 lakh. ASG Raju argued how can a company with less than ₹ 5 lakh to take over another company holding assets worth ₹ 2,000 crore. He pointed absurdity of the transaction. Despite AJL's ₹ 2000 crore assets, it struggled to manage daily affairs. Raju argued that a sensible person would have sold some of those assets to clear the ₹ 90 crore loan, which was small in comparison to the company's total worth. The ASG alleged that the AICC conspired to usurp AJL's assets through Young Indian, created to siphon off ₹ 2000 crore in exchange for the ₹ 90 crore loan. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju questioned why the All India Congress Committee (AICC) gave another loan to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) when the company was unable to repay the earlier loan, asking why a prudent person would do this. Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard the arguments at length for nearly three hours and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3. (With inputs from agencies)
India Gazette
02-07-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
National Herald case: Court questions ED on AJL shareholding, Congress' role in Rs 2000 cr company assets
New Delhi [India], July 2 (ANI): While hearing the Directorate of Enforcement's (ED) arguments on a money laundering complaint in the National Herald case, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court raised certain queries to the ED about the shareholding of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and whether the Congress party was a victim, as it had given a loan to AJL. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted that there was a conspiracy to siphon off the assets of AJL, a company with assets worth Rs 2000 crore, a fact known to Congress leaders. Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard the arguments at length for nearly three hours and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3. The ED filed a prosecution complaint (charge sheet) against seven persons: Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex, and Sunil Bhandari. The Congress provided a loan of Rs. 90.25 crore to AJL, which had no means to repay despite holding assets worth Rs. 2000 crores, ASG Raju submitted. Raju alleged that the accused aimed to usurp AJL, with its Rs. 2000 crore assets, by creating Young Indian, a company controlled by the Gandhis. The ED argued that Young Indian acquired AJL for just Rs. 50 lakh in exchange for the Rs. 90 crore loan provided by the Congress. The ED further stated that the accused firm, Dotex, gave a Rs. 1 crore loan to Young Indian, out of which Rs. 50 lakh was paid to the All India Congress Committee (AICC). Consequently, Young Indian became the owner of AJL for Rs. 50 lakh. ASG Raju argued that a company without even Rs. 5 lakh became the owner of a company with Rs. 2000 crore in assets, emphasising the absurdity of the transaction. Despite AJL's Rs. 2000 crore assets, it struggled to manage daily affairs. Raju argued that any prudent person would have sold assets to repay the Rs. 90 crore loan, which was insignificant compared to the company's asset value. The ASG alleged that the AICC conspired to usurp AJL's assets through Young Indian, created to siphon off Rs. 2000 crore in exchange for the Rs. 90 crore loan. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju questioned why the All India Congress Committee (AICC) gave another loan to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) when the company was unable to repay the earlier loan, asking why a prudent person would do this. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi wanted to take over AJL, a company with assets worth Rs. 2000 crores. ASG Raju argued that Dotex gave a Rs. 1 crore loan to Young Indian, a company in shambles, without any guarantee. All this money came in when Rahul Gandhi (RG) and Sonia Gandhi (SG) entered the fray. During the hearing, the court asked the ED to clarify whether donations, loans, rent, etc., are part of the proceeds of crime. ASG Raju stated that they are proceeds of crime, emphasising, 'It is nothing but proceeds of crime.' ASG Raju also referred to a letter written by the Director of AJL to AICC, stating that they were unable to repay the loan as the publication was suspended and had no regular income. Two months after this letter, Young Indian was created. The ED said that after the appointment of Rahul Gandhi, Young Indian wrote a letter to AJL to repay the loan or convert it into equity. It was a loss-incurring company to the tune of Rs. 70 lakh. AICC told Young Indian to give Rs. 50 lakh, and in return, they would get Rs. 90 crores. It did not have a capital of Rs. 50 lakh, ASG argued. The ASG submitted that they (the accused) had shares in Young Indian. There was a paper transaction of shares, not a genuine one. It was submitted that Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi were beneficiaries of Young Indian. The four persons--Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, and Sam Pitroda--were key managerial personnel in Young Indian as per their own audit report. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had 38 per cent shares each in Young Indian. The court queried what was wrong with acquiring a company. ASG submitted that if you want to acquire, it should be done at market price, not for peanuts. The company AJL, having assets of Rs. 2000 crores, was taken over for the loan of Rs. 90 crores. It is fraud. It was not a genuine transaction, ASG submitted. ASG Raju said that AJL was not acquired by the Congress but by Young Indian. It was a conspiracy. Congress did not charge interest or require collateral. The Rs. 90 crores loan was sold for Rs. 50 lakh, ASG said. 'It is a conspiracy at the behest of Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to take away the assets of Rs. 2000 crores,' ASG alleged. The court asked whether Congress was a victim. The ASG submitted that Congress took a hit of Rs. 89 crore to benefit Young Indian. AICC leaders and others defrauded the party of the loan of Rs. 90 crore. The ASG argued that the Gandhis were the beneficiaries in Young Indian. They held 76 per cent of the shares. After the deaths of Motilal Vohra and Oscar Fernandes, total control came into the hands of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. It was a company of the Gandhis. He said that the borrower was saying they didn't have the money to repay the loan, yet the lender still gave a donation. No prudent person would do this. The court raised a query: 'What if Congress wrote off the loan? Banks do it all the time. Congress wrote off the loan, and Congress is not an accused. How does this distinguish from other companies? How is this such a peculiarity that the ED wanted to investigate? PSUs are writing off crores of rupees.' ASG Raju said that in the case of banks, they don't have assets, so they have to lend. It is in that case that they enter into a compromise with the borrower. In this case, assets of Rs. 2000 crores were available. The assets have value, even if they are not generating income. ASG Raju said that for giving Rs. 90 crores, you (the accused) are getting assets of Rs. 2000 crore; it is fraud. To get the assets of Rs. 2000 crore, you entered into the conspiracy, the ASG argued. Young Indian was formed for the purpose of committing fraud, he added. ASG Raju said that the transaction of purchasing the loan by Young Indian from AJL was a sham transaction, as it was known that AJL does not have any income, and Young Indian was not going to get anything out of it. The court asked why Congress was not a shareholder in AJL and directed the ED to verify this tomorrow. (ANI)
The Print
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Use PMLA judiciously, don't lose leverage by making early arrests—ASG Raju advises ED officers
ASG Raju made these remarks while delivering a keynote address on foundation day of the ED Thursday, while sharing the stage with Union Minister Pankaj Chaudhary, ED Director Rahul Navin, and two special directors of the agency. As the law officer of the Union government, Raju represents the ED in PMLA cases in the Supreme Court and high courts across the country. Raju said that early arrests prevent the possibility of unearthing evidence crucial to investigation. With early arrests, he added, investigators lose leverage as the conduct of the accused changes, with the fear of arrest no longer being a factor. New Delhi: Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju has urged Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers to apply the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) judiciously, adding that arrests should be made at a later stage, and not at a nascent point of investigation. 'Arrest is very crucial for investigation. Many times it is the threat of arrest that makes people disclose so many things…After their arrest, their conduct changes…Before arrest, it's better if the person under investigation speaks out and some evidence comes forth,' Raju told a gathering of hundreds of ED officers at the Bharat Mandapam. 'So what I suggest is this: you must use your power to arrest not liberally but sparingly and you must use it at a very late stage, maybe not a very late stage, but at a stage which is not the early stage or a nascent stage,' he further said. Raju said investigators must also refrain from making early arrests when they don't have substantial grounds to do so, which is rebuked by the courts. 'If you arrest a person when your investigation is not over, you can't file a complaint within 60 days. If you don't file a complaint within 60 days, the person gets default bail. The person may have been the worst of the offenders but because you arrested him early you are not in position to complete the investigation and therefore he gets the default bail,' he argued. He also reminded the ED officers that statements recorded by investigating officers while an accused is in custody is not admissible as evidence, contrary to statements recorded during questioning. He cited Section 50 of the PMLA, which allows authorities to summon individuals for questioning in money laundering investigations. 'Then another thing is early arrest also defeats the provisions of Section 50 of the PMLA Act. Statements recorded under Section 50 can be admissible in evidence, whereas statements recorded by regular police agencies are not admissible in evidence, courts of law can't look at it. Therefore material evidence can be gathered when you interrogate a person, when the ED interrogates a person and they get information. But if a person is arrested, the Section 50 statements become vulnerable. It is no longer evidence, so you have to obtain a Section 50 statement before arrest,' Raju said. 'Don't be hasty in arresting people. Take your time. Get the evidence, take the statement and then arrest them. That's my second suggestion to the ED officers present here,' he added. 'Hawala operators should be made reporting authorities' Among other suggestions, the ASG also pointed out ways to better apply Section 70 of the PMLA, which deals with money laundering offences committed by companies. Companies have been defined as a group of people by the agency in the past while imposing this section in its prosecution charge sheet. Under this provision, ED has the power to charge individuals responsible for the conduct of a company during the period of money laundering. However, Raju emphasised that these allegations should be 'crisp, clear and specific'. 'The Supreme Court has quashed many cases because there were no allegations in the complaint, saying that you are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Merely saying you are a director is not sufficient. You must specify why he is responsible for the conduct of the business at the time the contravention took place,' he added. Raju also argued for an amendment in the PMLA so hawala operators can be made 'reporting authorities', meaning they will be mandated to provide timely inputs on money laundering and flow of funds outside of India to the ED. 'My suggestion is that they must be made by reporting authorities. Their responsibility is to identify and verify their clients. They must maintain records. If they are made reporting authority, they will come within four corners of the PMLA and they will be required to do many things such as maintaining records of their clients and hence it will be easier not only to detect but also to prevent,' said the ASG. (Edited by Gitanjali Das) Also Read: ED director concedes PMLA cases piling up for yrs, weeks after CBI chief made similar admission
