New Delhi, Apr 25: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has told the Supreme Court that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's conduct in avoiding interrogation despite nine summonses in a money-laundering case linked to Delhi excise policy scam led the investigating officer “to form the satisfaction” that he's guilty of money laundering.
Accusing the AAP of being the “major beneficiary” of the proceeds of crime generated in the Delhi excise policy scam, the ED said the party has committed the offence of money laundering through its national convenor Arvind Kejriwal.
“The accused, by his conduct, has himself contributed and aided the investigating officer regarding the existence of the necessity to arrest, apart from the material in possession of the IO, to form the satisfaction that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering,” the ED said in an affidavit filed in the top court.
“Even on the date of the search during his interrogation while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA he was avoiding answering questions by being evasive and totally non-cooperative even with respect to simple non-incriminating questions. One of the reasons, therefore, which necessitated the arrest was this blatant disregard for the law, inter alia, the aforesaid conduct of the accused,” the probe agency said.
The ED said “the material in possession of the investigating agency which formed the basis for the investigating agency to arrive at the satisfaction requisite for arresting the accused person, having been seen and perused by three different judicial authorities (courts) at three different levels has found judicial imprimatur and the consequential denial to grant the relief asked for by the petitioner in connection with the same.”
“The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the Delhi liquor scam. Part of the proceeds of crime to the tune of cash of Rs 45 cr approx. has been utilised in the election campaign of AAP in Goa Assembly elections 2022,” the affidavit said, adding, “In this manner, AAP has committed the offence of money laundering through Arvind Kejriwal and the offences thus are covered by section 70, PMLA 2002.'
Filed in response to his petition challenging the Delhi High court's verdict upholding his arrest, the ED affidavit sought dismissal of Kejriwal's petition as being “devoid of merit”.
A Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna – which had on April 15 issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging the Delhi High Court's verdict upholding his arrest in the case—is expected to take up the ED's affidavit on April 29.
The probe agency asserted that “the petitioner (Kejriwal) has been arrested bona fide and not for any mala fide or extraneous reasons.
Rejecting the allegation that his arrest was mala fide, the probe agency said that “not only the contention of the petitioner is baseless and ill-founded but it is also vague general and not specific.”
The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21 after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the probe agency in the money laundering case. On April 1, a Delhi Special Court sent Kejriwal to 14-day judicial custody till April 15 on the expiry of his ED custody.
The ED alleged that Kejriwal was the kingpin and the key conspirator of the excise scam and there were reasons to believe on the basis of material in its possession that the AAP leader was guilty of the offence of money laundering.
As Kejriwal continued to be in Tihar Jail under judicial custody, the BJP has been demanding his resignation, saying Delhi Government can't be run from jail. However, the Delhi High Court has refused to entertain at least three PILs seeking his resignation as it maintained that it was for the Lt Governor of Delhi to take call on the issue.
Spelling further trouble for beleaguered Delhi Chief Minister, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court had on April 9 dismissed his petition challenging his arrest by the ED, saying there was no violation of law or the Supreme Court's verdicts and that there was “enough material” to justify his arrest.
