Aircel-Maxis Case: Delhi High Court Seeks Marans’ Reply On Enforcement Directorate Plea

Aircel-Maxis Case: Delhi High Court Seeks Marans’ Reply On Enforcement Directorate Plea

NEW DELHI: A plea from the Directorate of Execution (DE) that opposes the release of the Maran brothers in a money laundering case under the Aircel-Maxis agreement led today the High Court Of Delhi to ask for their reply.

Judge SP Garg informed former Telecommunications Minister Dayanidhi Maran, industrialist Kalanithi Maran and his wife Kavery Kalanithi, South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL), its managing director K Shanmugam and Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd. (SDTPL) and asked their answers within four weeks on the ED’s plea against a February 2 ruling on a special court.

The IWC Special Court dismissed the cases filed by the IWC and the ED against the Marans and others in the Aircel-Maxis transaction by two separate orders.

The trial court stated that there was no prima facie evidence to support the charges against one of the accused on the basis of documents filed in court.

With respect to the money laundering case, the trial court observed that since the accused had been released in the case of offenses under CBI and ED, the matter had become “unfounded” and Nothing survived.

In its petition, the ED stated that the Special Court had not considered the comments on the alleged unlawful acts committed by the companies involved in the case.

“Accordingly, (the court) did not appreciate the roles of Kalanithi Maran and Kavery Kalanithi and their use of Maran group companies to commit illegal acts,” said the agency’s request.

The ED also argued that the trial court “did not appreciate” that an acquittal in the CBI case did not imply that there was no proceeding against the accused under the Act On the prevention of money laundering (PMLA).

The agency said the trial court “erred” in finding that the commission of the offense was an essential condition for establishing the crime of money laundering.

“It is a settled legal position that the prosecution of the money laundering offense can take place regardless of whether the offense is prosecuted,” the ED said, adding that the trial court had ” Failed to appreciate “that money laundering was a” stand alone “offense” in law.

He further stated that the attachments of the ED and the confiscation of “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA may “proceed legally” and that these restrictions can not be lifted if the accused is released in the offense planned.

The ED had already filed an appeal against the order of the Special Court before the Supreme Court, but the apex court asked him to file the High Court instead.

In the case of money laundering, ED accused the Maran brothers, the wife of Kalanithi Kavery, SAFL, Shanmugam and SDTPL under the PMLA. It had also awarded the assets of Marans in value Rs. 748.52 crore in this case under the PMLA.

CBI had also displaced the high court by challenging the Marans and other orders of 2 February in the Aircel-Maxis case.

The CBI, in its case, filed a complaint against Maran brothers Ralph Marshall, T Ananda Krishnan and four companies – M / s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd., M / s Astro All Asia Networks Plc, M / s Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, M / s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd., Malaysia – and then additional secretary (Telecom) JS Sarma, died during the probe.

They were charged with an alleged criminal conspiracy offense under the IPC and under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The special court said the case was based on the basis that Dayanidhi and Sarma deliberately delayed approval of several issues, including the issuance of UAS licenses to Aircel, to force the Chennai-based Sivasankaran C developer to leave The telecommunications sector.

Leave a Reply