New Delhi [India], July 6 (ANI): Defending Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case linked to the National Herald, Congress leaders Supriya Shrinate and Pawan Khera questioned the basis of the ED investigation, calling it a “strange” case as there has been “no exchange of money.”
Addressing the media on Saturday, Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said, “This is such a strange case where there is a charge of money laundering, but there has been no exchange of money in it. Neither has there been any property transfer nor any assets. The Congress party gave the money for its revival as AJL (Associated Journal Limited) was not a simple institution — it was founded during the freedom movement of the country. We wanted to protect such an institution.”
Reiterating the party’s stand, Congress leader Pawan Khera argued that the ED was overstepping its jurisdiction by questioning financial decisions made by the party.
“We had raised a question that the ED cannot question why we hadn’t sold properties for loan repayment. We gave the loan interest-free as it was meeting the objectives of publishing a newspaper, and if they cannot pay the loan, who is the ED to ask the question?” Khera said.
Earlier on Saturday, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s counsel told the Rouse Avenue court, which is hearing the National Herald case that Young Indian was created to revive Associated Journal Limited (AJL) and not to earn rent, “AJL is freedom-fighting legacy, our purpose is to save it, not to earn rent from its properties. It was founded by Jawaharlal Nehru, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and other leaders before Independence. Motive was its revival, not to earn rent,” the counsel mentioned.
Special judge Vishal Gogne is hearing arguments on the cognizance of prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Senior advocate RS Cheema along with Tarannum Cheema appeared for Rahul Gandhi. Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey also appeared in the matter.
The court has listed the matter for hearing on Monday. The court has also sought reply on application moved by Suman Dubey seeking a direction for supply of certain documents including the statement of Motilal Vohra taken by the ED in another related case.
At the outset of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju also addressed the court regarding a query on the takeover of AJL by Young Indian and the disinvestment of Air India by the Centre. He said disinvestment in Air India was done in a transparent way.
“You can’t compare Air India deal with the Young Indian deal,” the ASG submitted. He said AICC gave a loan to loss-making AJL, and no prudent person would do it. “Rs 90 crore loss to AICC is a wrongful loss. It is a result of conspiracy by respondents,” he said.
Raju submitted that AICC should have adopted an auction to recover the debt, and AICC was aware that AJL was a loss-making company. There was no transparency in taking the debt of AJL by Young Indian, he said.
In response to Raju’s submissions, Cheema asked if it is for the ED to decide what AICC’s motive and priority are.
“It is incumbent on the court to take a look of complaint of Dr Subramaniam Swamy while taking cognizance of complaint of ED,” Cheema said. He said Motilal Vohra was questioned by the ED at his home in another case related to AJL.
“That case was filed in 2016 and cognizance was taken. ED waited a long time. Vohra passed away. He had knowledge of the deal. His statement was recorded,” the Senior Advocate said.
“A private complaint filed Dr. Subramaniam Swamy was converted into a schedule offence and ED later registered a money laundering case? One of the few exceptions that was made by ED was picking up a private complaint after years. The question is how will the Court respond to this?” Cheema said.
Scheduled offence and FIR or statutory complaint need to be exist for a money laundering case, Cheema said. Cheema said Young Indian (YI) would have no rights on the assets of AJL. The Senior Advocate also submitted despite being a not-for-profit company, Young Indian was not indulging in any charity. He strongly denied the allegations that young Indian was involved in money laundering.
Cheema said late leader Motilal Vohra, who was treasurer of AICC, was responsible for management of funds. He said AJL is alive and kicking and digital news operation was started.
“AJL is not dead. It is in control of its properties. Congress Party gave a lone to revive AJL. The loan was not given to earn interest or to get its properties,” he said. “If AJL makes profits, it will go to the Young Indian, not the individuals. The rent generated from the property is being enjoyed by the respondents, it is totally wrong, ” the Senior Advocate submitted. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
