Court insists Ed appeals, “on the surface” of money laundering against Chanda Kochhar
In a high-profile money laundering case involving former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar, the appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the appeal court upheld the Law Enforcement Bureau (ED) appeal, challenging an earlier order that refused to confirm Kochhar Assets’ temporary attachment.
The court dismissed the technical objection raised by Kochhar and other respondents to the maintainability of the Emergency Department appeal, which was filed through the Deputy Director.
The respondents argued that only ED directors were authorized to file such appeals under Section 26 of the Act.
However, the court chaired by Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari ruled that the appeal was brought legally and required the authorization of the directors to be filed and reiterated that the term “wronged” should be tolerated.
The court also pointed out that there was an ostensible case against Chanda Kochhar’s money laundering.
In a detailed judgment, the court made several harsh comments on Kochhar’s behavior, the conflict of interest of the CEO of ICICI Bank and the way in which the VideoCon Group loans were approved as a non-performing asset.
At the heart of the case is the approval of Rs 1.73 lakh loans between 2009 and 2011, which are allegedly in violation of internal credit policies and allegedly in violation of internal credit policies.
ED argues that Kochhar abused her formal stance to promote these loans.
In return, her family has benefited greatly in financial terms, including transfers to Nupower Renewables through Shell Companies, which is controlled by her husband Deepak Kochhar.
The court pointed out the “design” behind the transaction trail, including the eventual transfer of the main residential apartments in Mumbai Church Gate City to a family trust fund related to Kochhar, which costs only Rs 1.1 lakh, despite earlier valuations.
ED claims that the apartment, along with wind farm assets and Rs 1.05 lakh of cash, were obtained using criminal proceeds and should be attached to attachment.
Although the ruling authorities had previously refused to confirm the attachment with insufficient evidence, the court found that the emergency room had reason to proceed. It also accuses the adjudication of being beyond its jurisdiction and makes the conclusion more suitable for the trial court.
The case now moves forward with its merits, with the court setting considering all evidence, including statements recorded under Article 50 of the PMLA, which are acceptable in court.
The emergency department insists that its investigation is supported by documented evidence, including corporate records and financial transactions, which show obvious efforts.
