A Delhi court has criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for it’s inadequate/ faulty investigation in money laundering case, leading the court to demand an explanation from an Assistant Director regarding these actions.
Pankaj Kumar, the case’s investigating officer (IO), came under fire from Special Judge Mohd Farrukh for his inability to carry out an impartial and exhaustive investigation. The court emphasized that important actions were overlooked, such as not prosecuting certain people even though they had information that implicated them.
Background
The complaint was based on an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into a conspiracy by the accused to forge and cash fictitious checks from a Lucknow branch of Punjab National Bank between October 2008 and March 2009.
Judge Farrukh came to the conclusion that since Bhargava and Benu Jain had been found not guilty of the underlying offence, they could not be prosecuted for money laundering.
However, the court used strong evidence to find Bansal and Mukesh Jain guilty. It also brought attention to the investigation’s shortcomings, especially with relation to financial activities.
Disparities found during the inquiry
The court noted that there was a sizable amount missing from M/s Analytical Impex Private Limited’s (AIPL) bank account, which suggested possible money laundering. Likewise, money sent to another account that Adhiraj Kumar managed sparked questions about possible collusion.
After examining the flaws of the investigation, the court called Adhiraj Kumar and AIPL Director Pramod Kumar Pandey to stand trial under the PMLA for their alleged roles in aiding Mukesh Jain.
The court also made a comment regarding how lengthy the investigation took—nearly ten years. It questioned the absence of supervision and blamed bureaucratic inertia for the hold-up.
Meenakshi Joshi
