
ED opposes release of Agusta case accused
told a Delhi court Tuesday that submissions by
, alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, for his release in a money laundering case linked to the deal are "misleading" and "devoid of merits".
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
ED's stand came after James's counsel informed special judge Sanjay Jindal Monday that his client had already undergone the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences for which he was extradited to India from UAE in 2018. Therefore, he argued that he is entitled to be released under section 436-A of CrPC.
This section deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. It states if an undertrial is detained for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum imprisonment specified for the offence, the person should be released on personal bonds, potentially with or without sureties. This provision applies to offences not punishable by death. In its reply, ED cited Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with the UAE.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
All 4 Accused In Kolkata Rape Case Remanded To Police Custody
Kolkata: In what is being claimed as a first-of-its-kind order by a court in Kolkata, all four accused in the South Calcutta Law College rape case were remanded to police custody for an additional period of three days, 39 days after they were first arrested. The prime accused in the case, Monojit Mishra, an alumnus and a contractual employee of the college, and two of his suspected accomplices, Pramit Mukhopadhyay and Zaib Ahmed, both students, along with Pinaki Banerjee, security guard of the campus, were granted police custody till August 8 by Amit Sarkar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore Court. The order was passed on Tuesday in the wake of all four accused having previously been remanded to police custody for 11 days, followed by their judicial custody for another 28 days. "Under the provisions of Section 167 of the earlier CrPC Act, the prayer for police remand had to be made within the first 15 days of arrest. That provision has now changed under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC on July 1, 2024. The BNSS now empowers the police to pray for remand anytime within the first 60 days of arrest for heinous crimes like rape and murder," Sourin Ghosal, the Kolkata Police Chief Public Prosecutor in Alipore Court, explained. "But this was the first time that the relevant clauses of BNSS were invoked in a court in Kolkata and, possibly, in the entire West Bengal and in which the judge found merit," Mr Ghoshal added. He said that the prayer for additional police remand of the accused was made in the light of fresh reports received by the investigators from cyber and forensic experts. "The statements previously made by the accused and the reports we have now received do not match in many places. Hence, there is a need to freshly interrogate the accused in police custody and, if required, they may be made to sit face to face to get to the bottom of the alleged crime," Mr Ghoshal said. In its order, the ACJM court, Alipore, rejected the defence counsel's prayer for bail and held that Section 47 of the BNSS, which mandates the police to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and right to bail, has been "duly complied" with. "It transpires from the prayer of the prosecution that PC is required for the purpose of pending investigations and so more fully described in the forwarding report of the IO. On perusal of the CD (case diary), I do find incriminating materials available against all the accused persons," the judge stated in his order. "All these aspects seem to this Court to be much of the essence and importance so far as investigation of this case is concerned, but the case itself is very grave and heinous to say the least. The purpose of the investigation of this case can be well served if the police custody of the present accused persons is granted by this court as prayed for," the order goes on to add. The shocking on-campus rape was alleged by a first-year student at the law college in south Kolkata's Kasba area where she named Mishra as the principal perpetrator of the crime and both Mukhopadhyay and Ahmed as accomplices. While the crime allegedly took place between 7.30 pm and 10.50 pm on June 25, the three accused were arrested on the intervening night of June 26 and 27. They were subsequently produced in Alipore court and remanded in police custody on June 27. A day later, the on-duty security guard of the campus during the time of the alleged crime, was also booked and remanded in custody. All accused have since been produced before the court thrice for extension of police remand and their subsequent judicial custody. The Kolkata Police prayed for the maximum term of custody for all the accused after they had served two back-to-back judicial remands of 28 days.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
ED seizes funds from 2022 Mangaluru blast accused
New Delhi:The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday said that it has attached funds worth ₹29,176 kept in the bank account of an accused in the ISIS-inspired 2022 Mangaluru cooker bomb blast case. The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday said that it has attached funds worth ₹ 29,176 kept in the bank account of an accused in the 2022 Mangaluru bomb blast case. (HT PHOTO) The blast took place in an auto rickshaw on the outskirts of Mangaluru on November 19, 2022. The man who was allegedly handling the explosives in the three-wheeler, identified as Mohammed Shariq, was injured and named as the main accused in the case. The bomb was supposed to be planted at the Dharmasthala Manjunatha Swamy Temple in Mangaluru. However, it exploded in the auto rickshaw as the timer was set at 09 seconds instead of 90 minutes, the federal probe agency said in a statement. Earlier, the ED had filed a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in November 2022, taking cognisance of a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe in the matter. The agency said in a statement that a 'bank deposit of ₹29,176 kept in the bank account of another accused named Syed Yasin has been provisionally attached under the PMLA through an order issued by the Bengaluru office of the ED on August 5'. A chargesheet filed in the case by the NIA said that the blast was part of a plan of the banned terrorist group ISIS to spread terror, wage war against the Government of India and to threaten the integrity and sovereignty of India. The agency said an online ISIS handler named 'Colonel' had given training over Wickr app/Telegram etc to Shariq alias Premraj and some other accused to prepare an improvised explosive device (IED). 'He (Colonel) also arranged funds through certain mule (illegal) accounts and also through cryptocurrencies, which were encashed by Yasin and Shariq through PoS (point of sale) agents,' the agency said. In some instances, the ED said, the encashed cryptocurrencies were routed through 'fraudulently opened mule accounts in FINO Payments Bank'. 'Funds worth ₹2,86,008 were deposited by different cryptocurrency dealers in the mule accounts and ₹41,680 was collected in cash. The amount was utilised for the purchase of some goods online to assemble the IED and for hiring hideouts in Mysuru and other places and also for conducting reconnaissance at various places in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka,' ED said. The ED said another accused in the case, Maaz Munir, was the person who provided the details of the FINO payments bank mule accounts to Shariq so that he could receive payments sent by the online handler, Colonel.


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Loan fraud case: ED investigation against Anil Ambani
Five years after he was questioned in the Yes Bank loan fraud case, industrialist Anil Ambani is once again under the scrutiny of investigative agencies. On July 24, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raided premises linked to his companies in connection with a Rs 17,000 crore alleged money laundering investigation. Anil Ambani appeared before ED investigators on Tuesday. The ED action came some days after the State Bank of India classified the loan account of one of his companies as fraudulent, and markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued an order detailing a systematic diversion of funds. The investigation flows from FIRs registered earlier by the CBI and inputs from institutions including SEBI, National Housing Bank (NHB), and Bank of Baroda, and covers several Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group companies including Reliance Infrastructure, Reliance Power, Reliance Communications, and Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL). The ED suspects a scheme of loan fraud and diversion of funds involving thousands of crores. Loans extended by RHFL and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd were allegedly routed to group companies and shell firms, bypassing norms and creating a false impression of loan performance through evergreening. According to the preliminary investigation: * A Rs 3,000 crore loan from Yes Bank (2017-19) was allegedly diverted soon after disbursal. In some cases, the loan was sanctioned before due diligence, and backdated documentation was used. * Loans were allegedly onward lent on the day of sanction, often to firms with common addresses and directors. * 'C Company', an undisclosed related party, was used to route funds without disclosure. Reliance Infrastructure allegedly diverted Rs 10,000 crore in this way. * The group allegedly took a haircut of Rs 5,480 crore, receiving only Rs 4 crore in cash and the rest in inactive power distribution companies, with no chance of recovery. The July 24 searches covered 35 premises, including 50 companies and 25 individuals, including senior Reliance Group officials. On August 5, Anil Ambani is learnt to have told the ED that he had no knowledge of several of the alleged fraudulent transactions and loan disbursals, and asked for a week's time to verify the details. The agency has written to a dozen banks including SBI, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank, and HDFC Bank, asking for details of due diligence on loans sanctioned to his companies, including RHFL and Reliance Communications. On August 4, Partha Sarathi Biswal, managing director of Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd (BTPL), was arrested for allegedly arranging fake bank guarantees worth Rs 68.2 crore that were provided by Reliance Power for a Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) tender. The ED is also examining the role of Yes Bank officials and probing possible quid pro quo. Under the scanner is a Rs 2,850 crore investment by Reliance Mutual Fund in AT-1 bonds of Yes Bank. On June 13, SBI, in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India's directions on fraud risk management, classified Reliance Communications, along with promoter director Anil Ambani, as 'fraud'. The bank is in the process of lodging a complaint with the CBI. SBI's credit exposure in RCom includes fund-based principal outstanding amount of Rs 2,227.64 crore along with accrued interest and expenses with effect from August 26, 2016, and non-fund-based bank guarantee of Rs 786.52 crore. The loan was declared fraudulent on the ground that the company had used the funds in violation of 'agreed terms', and due to 'irregularities observed in the conduct of the account of Reliance Communications'. RCom has said that it is undergoing a corporate insolvency resolution process, and has earlier reported outstanding debt of Rs 40,400 crore. The company has said that the loans referred to by SBI pertain to the period before the insolvency resolution process, and are required to be resolved through the process. In a strong order earlier this year, SEBI laid out how RHFL and its key executives, including Anil Ambani, allegedly orchestrated a fraud on public investors and shareholders. * Rs 12,487 crore in loans were disbursed to 47 shell companies (Potentially Indirectly Linked Entities) between FY17 and FY19. * Many of these companies shared common addresses, directors, or email domains with Anil Ambani group firms. * Deviations from credit policies were routine: loans disbursed on the day of application, backdated sanction memos, incomplete documentation, no security creation. * Loans were allegedly routed to repay earlier loans — an evergreening loop that misrepresented financial health. * A forensic audit by Grant Thornton found that in many cases, the funds ended up back with group companies like Reliance Capital, Reliance Infra, and Reliance Big Entertainment. * SEBI said the GPCL (General Purpose Corporate Loan) scheme was a facade for diversion. It restrained Anil Ambani and top company executives from accessing the securities market, pending further proceedings. The developments have come as Anil Ambani was trying to rebuild after years of financial and reputational setbacks. His troubles began soon after the high-profile split with brother Mukesh Ambani. Companies such as Reliance Communications, Reliance Capital, and Reliance Power collapsed under financial strain — RCom shut down operations in 2019 with liabilities exceeding Rs 46,000 crore. The downfall was marked by defaults, insolvency proceedings, and regulatory actions, including a five-year SEBI ban on Anil Ambani for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to siphon off funds. His troubles extended to defence and infrastructure ventures. Reliance Naval failed to deliver key defence contracts and entered bankruptcy. Other high-profile ventures like Dassault Reliance Aerospace played only modest roles in India's defence sector. Anil Ambani stepped down from several board positions, and group assets were either sold or restructured through insolvency proceedings. A slow turnaround began in 2022. The group pivoted to clean energy, infrastructure, and defence manufacturing. Reliance Power achieved zero debt, and new defence partnerships were forged with European companies. —With inputs from Mahender Singh Manral