ED counsel debunks claims of political vendetta
The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday debunked the arguments put forth by all Chhagan Bhujbal supporters that the agency’s investigation against the former Maharashtra deputy chief minister for alleged money laundering is politically motivated. ED counsel Hiten Venegaonkar cited the order passed by Bombay high court, which was hearing a PIL filed by the Aam Admi Party against the Bhujbals, on December 18, 2014 in which the court clearly stated that “a prima facie case has been made out”. After hearing extensive arguments from the ED, the senior counsel of Bhujbal and submissions made by Bhujbal himself, additional sessions judge P.R. Bhavake remanded Bhujbal to ED custody for two days.
While the NCP workers held aggressive protests in various parts of the state, including Mumbai and the NCP and Congress leaders termed Bhujbal’s arrest by the ED as political vendetta, the ED counsel questioned the aptness of such contentions. He said that the Bombay high court had formed a SIT to investigate the case after coming to the conclusion that prima facie, a case of corruption and money laundering was made out against Bhujbal, his family members and associates.
Senior counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar, who also argued that the case was in fact a political vendetta against Bhujbal, challenged the ED counsel to show the court any order passed by the HC endorsing the accusations against his client. On this, advocate Venegaonkar read out the HC order dated December 18, 2014.
“On perusing the complaint and the annexures thereto and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made, especially with reference to the awarding of contracts to certain parties who have deposited substantial amounts into the bank accounts of the Private Limited Companies and the Mumbai Educational Trust wherein Respondent No.6 and / or his son / other relatives / employees and / or relatives of such employees are substantially interested, we find that a prima facie case has been made out,” the HC had said in its order.
Seeking Bhujbal’s custody, the ED counsel told the court that he was questioned extensively on Monday, but he gave evasive answers to several “key questions”. According to ED, they want to confront Bhujbal with his nephew Sameer, who is also in jail in connection with the same case, to get clarifications on several transactions.
In its remand application, the ED stated that K.S. Chamankar Enterprises had paid Rs 6.03 crores to Origin Infrastructure and later the sub-contractor Prime Builders and Developers had also paid Rs 18.50 crore in that account. Funds transferred from Prime Builders, partners of Chamankar to the entities controlled by Bujbals are nothing but financial accomodation to Bhujbal and his family members as a quid pro quo for sanctioning and awarding the Chamankars Maharashtra Sadan/RTO Project, the application stated.
The ED also claimed that its investigation so far prima facie reveals “generation of huge illicit funds and its laundering by the family members and associates of the accused No. 2 (Mr Bhujbal)”. The agency has also recorded statements of directors of 12 companies, which were allegedly controlled by the Bhujbals. In their depositions, these directors have told the ED that they were mere signatories of the said companies used to sign documents at the behest of their employers i.e. the Bhujbal family.
The chartered accountant of the Bhujbal Group and “market operators” told investigators that shares of Parvesh Constructions and Armstrong Energy (both owned by Bhujbals) were sold to “dubious” entities for cash at “unrealistic high premiums” of Rs 9,900 per share and Rs 125 crore was channelled by this method. The cash was handed over to the operators at the office of Mumbai Educational Trust. The Bhujbals were also paid through “phony” real estate transactions from 2006 onwards, ED said.
Advocate Dhakephalkar told the court that not knowing about certain things does not amount to non co-operation. He said that the Anti-Corruption Bureau completed its entire investigation and did not feel the need to take Bhujbal into custody. He also argued that Bhujbal appeared before the agency on the first summon and was willing to be present whenever called and that the confrontation could take place even without taking him into custody.
When the judge asked Bhujbal if he had any complaints against the ED officers, he replied in negative. However, made a 10-minute long submission in his defence. “I am being targeted even though I have not done anything wrong,” Bhujbal told the court with folded hands. He even got emotional on couple of occasions while speaking.
“I have cooperated (with ED). I have been in social service for the past fifty years. When some questions were put to me (by ED), I honestly said I did not know but still I was arrested,” he said.
Bhujbal refuted the allegations that he had granted the contract in question (Maharashtra Sadan guesthouse in Delhi) and added that he only followed the directions of the then chief minister (the late) Vilasrao Deshmukh to attend meetings (related to the project).
“CM Vilasrao Deshmukh told me to hold meetings and I followed that. I did not grant the contract,” he said. Some disgruntled employees of the Mumbai Education Trust (MET), a trust run by him, cooked up the allegations, he claimed.
