Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are facing allegations in the National Herald case. He is accused of cheating the assets worth more than Rs 2,000 crore by Associated Journal Limited (AJL), a company publishing National Herald newspaper. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a charge sheet in April accusing Sonia, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, late Congress leader Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes and private company ‘Young Indian’ of conspiracy and money laundering. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, on behalf of the ED, completed his arguments at the point of cognizance of the charge sheet filed in the case on 3 July.
Now Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and lawyers of other parties accused in the case are keeping their arguments in the court on the charge sheet of ED. In this series, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing Sonia Gandhi, argued in the court that the National Herald case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is ‘really strange’. Singhvi began his refutation after ending his arguments at the point of cognizance of the charge sheet filed by Solicitor General SV Raju in addition to ED on 3 July.
Also read: What is the matter of 752 crore properties of National Herald, Young India and AJL associated with Congress, whose seizure was justified by the court
Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued, ‘This is actually a strange matter. More than weird. Unprecedented This is an alleged case of money refinement, without any property or use without any property. Young Indian was not given even an inch property from Associated Journal Limited (AJL). No Congress leader got any property or money. Still it is called wealth treatment. The ED alleges that the Gandhi family was owned by Young India, as 76 percent of its shares were with Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. This company grabbed AJL’s property in exchange for a loan of Rs 90 crore.
Young Indian is a not-for-profit company: Abhishek Singhvi
However, Singhvi said that this exercise was done to make AJL debt -free. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, ‘Every company has this right under the law and it frees its company through various types of means every day. Therefore, you take a loan and hand it over to another unit. Thus this company becomes debt free. He said that Young Indian is a not-for-profit company. The senior lawyer argued, ‘This means that this company cannot give dividend (dividend to its share holders), it cannot pay, it cannot pay, it cannot pay, it cannot pay, it cannot give anything.’
He said that after investing money in AJL shares, Young Indian only got authority over dividends and no interest was made on AJL properties. He asked, ‘How can the Gandhi family and young Indian be considered a proxy form of AJL?’ Singhvi said that the ED did nothing for many years and instead filed a personal complaint. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, ‘AJL was restructured in 2010 and ED lodged an ECIR in 2021, between which there is a difference of 11 years. There cannot be a bigger gap than this. Private complaint (filed by Subramanian Swamy) and ECIR also have a difference of eight years.
ALSO READ: ‘Conspiracy to grab property worth 2000 crores by giving 90 crores’, Sonia-Rahul accused in National Herald case
Will Tata-Bidla be accused of money laundering: Singhvi
After this, the judge questioned whether the Congress party had the right to waive loans? In response to this, Singhvi said, ‘There is no common ban in the law that prevents a person from recovery of debt. The law encourages the abolition of non-performing assets (NPAS) by taking the loan under it. Suppose AJL’s loan was taken by Tata or Birla, can Tata and Birla be accused of money laundering? In this way, the entire concept will be destroyed. In the case of non-profit company, case of money laundering is the result of their madness. This is what happens when politics becomes supreme and the law becomes final. Now the proceedings in this case will continue with the reply from Rahul Gandhi on the allegations of ED on 5 July.
Earlier on July 3, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued at the point of cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the ED, saying that the Gandhi family was the ‘beneficial owner’ of Young Indian and after the death of other shareholders, he achieved full control of it. The ED has filed a charge sheet against the Gandhi family and others under Section 3 (Dhan Laundering) and 4 (punished for money refinement) of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The charge sheet also includes the names of Dude, Pitroda, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited.
—- End —-