New Delhi4 minutes ago
- Copy link
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi Young Indian Limited have a mazority shareholders and both have a 76% stake.
In the National Herald case, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, advocate of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, argued in the court that repaying the debt of AJL (Associated Journal Limited) was a valid business decision. Every company has the right to lift its debt legally and we did the same. AJL’s property is still with us, and no transfer has been done.
According to Singhvi, AJL’s loan of Rs 90 crore was taken by a non-profit company named Young Indian to be debt free. This case is not made of money laundering because there is no transaction, nor misuse of money nor distribution of benefits.
Singhvi asked if AJL’s debt had been taken by industrial houses like Tata or Birla, would they have been accused of money laundering. No authorized person has filed a complaint to investigate the case and Subramanian Swamy is not authorized in the case.
There is a difference of 11 years between Young Indian’s decision and ED investigation, and Swami’s complaint and ED case. Special Judge Vishal Gogane has listed the case for hearing the arguments of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi after hearing the arguments of Sonia Gandhi.
Sonia claims- Young Indian a non-profit company
Singhvi clarified that Young Indian is a non-profit company that cannot distribute profit, salary or bonus, and all its objectives are transparent and valid. AJL has properties across India for decades and no property ownership has been transferred. There was a dire need of money for AJL and the Congress revived it by giving loans.
At the same time, the ED claims that the Gandhi family captured AJL’s assets worth more than 2000 crores through Young Indian. The agency says that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are the beneficiaries of Young Indian and through the company they fraudulently gained control of AJL.
Sonia’s lawyer’s arguments in court …
- All this happened when Young Indian received 99% of AJL. How is this money laundering? “
- There is no FIR. Only then can the jurisdiction of ED be revealed. This is a political matter.
- Imagine that there is no complaint by an FIR or agency … We cannot create such speculation and perceptions.
- The ED has never done this in 23 years- after years raising a personal complaint and requesting the court to take cognizance of it.