National Herald Case: There was an important hearing on the Chargesheet filed by the ED on the charge sheet filed against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald case in the Rousse Avenue Court. The court asked ASG Raju whether you have to say that the accused can only be heard at the point of cognizance and not in the case of issuing summons. Advocate ASG Raju, presented by the ED, said that yes, the matter of cognizance of crime is only in this stage, this right is given to them only during the discharge stage.
Investigation agency ED gave important arguments
Advocate ASG Raju, presented by the ED, said that he only has to argue whether cognizance can be taken against him. Whether or not a case is made against them, whether the question comes later, but if the court wants to see the case against each, then my argument is that a prima facie case is made against each of them.
On behalf of the ED, ASG Raju said that there is no need for any authority to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed against the accused in the case and to prosecute any authority. On behalf of ED, ASG, SV Raju said that none of the proposed accused is a public servant and none of these is a public servant who can be removed from the approval of the government. Therefore, there is no need to take a session against the accused.
Fake transaction was mentioned
ASG Raju told the court that there was a company named AJL. This company was not making profits, but it had a big assets. There was assets of 2000 crores, but it was difficult to handle daily functioning. If the company is going well, then you cannot say that I am in loss.
A loan of 90 crores was taken from AICC and says that we cannot repay. AICC wanted to grab this company, whose assets were 2000 crores. There was a conspiracy to create Young India to grab 2000 crores in lieu of 90 crore loan. AICC gave another loan. Why would a sensible person do this?
What did ED accuse Sonia and Rahul?
The lawyer appearing for the ED said that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi wanted to take this 2000 crore company in their possession. A loan of 90 crores was taken from AICC. He had 2000 crores, but could not repay 90 crores. AICC could go to court to repay the loan, but he wanted to grab the company and thus built Young India. ED said that they did not take out the tender and give it to Young Indian. Which gives 50 lakhs and takes the company.
Important arguments of ED, everything under information
The ED said that this is the first part of the conspiracy. Later young Indians do not have money to repay it and then they go to Kolkata, where there are shell companies. A loan of 1 crore was given to Young Indian, whose balance sheet was negative and was given 1 crore. All this money comes after coming to the front of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. In 50 lakhs, AJL’s assets worth 2000 crores go to Young Indian. Which becomes a holding company and AJL becomes a subsidiary.
ASG Raju, while reading part of the ED’s charge sheet, told the court that the investigation of the ED shows that Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi had control over Young Indian, as the two together kept 76% shares under a well-planned conspiracy. In fact, these companies were under the control of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and they were responsible for their operation.
Property received from crime
In the money laundering case related to the National Herald, the ED argued that the Associated Journal Limited had shown an advertisement revenue of Rs 29.45 crore between 2017-18 and 20-21. ED investigation has revealed that Rs 15.86 crore was obtained from Congress -linked institutions, while Rs 13.59 crore was taken from other institutions.
The ED said that the people or institutions whose names were recorded in the advertisement laser were sent summons. During interrogation, many people confessed that they made this payment on the instructions of Congress leaders.
Some people also said that they gave this amount with the aim of getting business protection from Congress leaders. The ED also stated that most of the advertisements were not in line with any trading objective, but mostly they were given a happy birthday to the top Congress leaders or congratulated messages. The ED said that people were paying fake advance fare for years. The rented receipts were fake.
Payment of some amount in the form of rent
On the instructions of senior Congress leaders, money was transferred to AJL. AJL was also given advertisement money on the instructions of senior Congress leaders. Therefore, whatever income is due to such fraud, it is the income of crime. The ED said that some donors who are well-known big names and senior leaders of the party have paid some amount in the form of rent.
Therefore, if it is considered to be the income of the crime, then why were they not accused. One accused Suman Dubey transferred shares to Sonia Gandhi. Oscar Fernandez transferred Rahul to Rahul and Rahul sent it back to Oscar Fernandes. These are all fake transactions and they are present only on paper.
Court question on crime income
The ED said that till 2015, only two people are among those who are benefiting, they are Rahul and Sonia Gandhi. The beneficial person is the one who has control over the company. The court asked the ED whether the amount of fare advertisement etc. is also considered to be the property obtained from the crime i.e. Procedure of Crime. The lawyer appearing on behalf of the ED said that whatever is the property acquired by fraud, it will come in POC.
The court said that these three categories have not been clearly shown as POC. These have been introduced only as a few points. The fare is also in two categories, 29 crores and 142 crore, where 142 crore has been called POC.
Donants made fake donations
At the same time, 29 crores have not been called so. The court said that we are asking this because some donors you are saying that they are giving fake donations, they are also members of the same party and some are also main faces, but they have not been made accused. If advance fare and donation are considered POC, will those people not come to the category of response.
The ED’s reply came that we are investigating the issue whether an property comes in POC when it is obtained or before. The court said that our aim is only to understand what things the ED is considering POC and not. The ED argued that in the present stage we consider these things to be POC. You can investigate further and it will be included in the supplementary charge sheet. The ED said that we will also file a further supplementary charge sheet in this matter.
Anonymous properties of Gandhi family
The ED said that Young India was also used for charity, but it was not intended for charity, but its purpose was to hide the real purpose. The ED said that after the death of Oscar Fernandez and Motilal Vora, Rahul and Sonia are controlling the properties of AJL. Both companies and benami properties belonged to the Gandhi family. The ED said that it is a conspiracy to grab a company’s assets worth Rs 2000 crore at a minor amount of Rs 50 lakh.
Young India was formed with the aim of cheating and carrying out the conspiracy. If AJL had given it directly to AICC, it would have been fraud. Therefore, this company was formed to distance away from AICC. It was known that AJL has such a big property. The ED said that if we find evidence tomorrow, we can make the Congress party an accused in the case under Section 70, but we will not do so without any evidence.
The accused cannot make the party yet
The ED said that the Congress party is not being made accused yet. This does not mean that this cannot happen in future. If we find enough evidence, we can also make them accused. If AICC is made accused, then the situation of Rahul and Sonia will help them to run the case under Section 70 of PMLA, but this will not be done without appropriate evidence.
The court sought an explanation from ED before 2010 about AJL’s shareholding, when Young India did not come forward. The next hearing in this case will be held on July 3 in the Rousse Avnu Court.
Also read:- Xi Jinping will not attend BRICS Summit, China told the reason