ED restores ₹3.82 crore worth assets to Ktaka Waqf Board
The money laundering case stems from a state police FIR filed against two Vijaya Bank officials and a man named Syed Siraj Ahmed, a first division assistant with the Waqf Board.
The Waqf Board issued two cheques of ₹ 4,00,45,465 to open fixed deposit accounts in the Vijaya Bank. However, instead of opening the accounts, the money was "siphoned off" by transferring to fictitious entities, the federal agency said in a statement.
It was found, the ED said, that ₹ 4 crore was transferred to the account of a company named Verkeys Realities Pvt. Ltd., which spent ₹ 1.10 crore in purchasing a Mercedes car while ₹ 2,72,74,444 was transferred to another account.
The agency had attached assets worth more than ₹ 3.82 crore in 2017 as part of this investigation and later in March that year it filed a chargesheet against six individuals and entities including Verkeys Realities.
This prosecution complaint was filed before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court located in Bengaluru.
In line with the PMLA and its "core objective" of ensuring the "restitution" of the proceeds of crime to the legitimate victims, the ED said no objections were raised by it when the additional sessions judge considered the release of the funds to the Karnataka State Waqf Board, the rightful claimant in this case.
The agency issued a banker's cheque of ₹ 3,82,74,444 to the Wakf Board on July 1, which it said, was a "significant" step forward in the ED's ongoing mission to restore the misappropriated funds to those who have been wronged.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
TDR scam: Bengaluru zonal office of Directorate of Enforcement issues provisional attachment order for assets worth Rs 4 crore
Bengaluru: The Bengaluru zonal office of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) Thursday issued a provisional attachment order for assets worth over Rs 4 crore in connection with the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) scam allegedly involving Valmark Realty Holdings Private Limited (VRHPL) and certain BBMP officials. The attached assets include land and flats belonging to TDR brokers and fake owners, ED said. TDR refers to an award specifying the built-up area an owner of a site or plot can sell or use elsewhere in exchange for land surrendered free of cost to an urban local body for public purposes such as road widening or recreation zones. The investigation is based on an FIR registered by the now-defunct Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). As per the chargesheet, VRHPL, represented by its director, Ratan Lath, obtained development right certificates and sold the TDRs to real estate companies and individuals, making an illegal gain of Rs 27.7 crore. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru Earlier, ED searched nine premises, including VRHPL's office, the director's residence, and properties linked to builders, brokers, and fake TDR applicants. These searches revealed the role of TDR brokers and previous owners. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, ED seized materials showing the distribution of the proceeds: VRHPL retained nearly Rs 17.5 crore, while brokers BS Surendranath, K Gautham, and K Suresh received Rs 3.5 crore, Rs 3.4 crore, and Rs 3.3 crore, respectively. The heirs of the late Revanna, a previous owner, received about Rs 2.7 crore from VRHPL's share. The funds were routed through multiple accounts before being used for real estate purchases and business expenses. ED said the probe so far points to a conspiracy involving brokers, VRHPL, and BBMP officials, who facilitated mutation in favour of previous owners despite the land already being converted into a revenue layout and occupied by third-party buyers. BBMP allegedly issued grossly inflated TDRs based on fabricated mahazars and valuation reports, without taking possession of the land, in violation of its own circulars. Similar fraud is suspected at other sites notified for public purposes, which ED is now examining. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
15 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Mercedes-Benz calls for rethink of EU's 2035 ban on combustion cars
The European Union's landmark plan to phase out petrol and diesel cars by 2035 is facing fresh criticism, this time from Mercedes-Benz. The German automaker's chief executive, Ola Kallenius , has cautioned that the policy risks throwing Europe's auto industry into chaos if pursued without flexibility. At the core of Mercedes-Benz's argument is not a rejection of decarbonisation, but of deadlines. Kallenius insisted that the industry's transition must be technology neutral. In an interview with Handelsblatt, Kallenius said, 'We need to do a reality check. Otherwise, we'll be driving full speed into the wall." The concern: fixed targets, fluid reality At the core of Mercedes-Benz's argument is not a rejection of decarbonisation, but of deadlines. Kallenius insisted that the industry's transition must be technology neutral. A blanket ban, he warned, could disrupt economies, especially if consumer demand fails to align with regulatory timelines. 'An absolute target at a fixed time with draconian penalties won't help," he said. Instead, the company advocates for a market-led transition, where consumer preference, supported by incentives, shapes the pace of EV adoption. Also Read : Mercedes G-Class hits 6 lakh production mark since 1979. Check details The China comparison Kallenius pointed to China as a counter-example. Unlike Europe, Beijing has not set an end-date for combustion engines. Instead, it has pushed EV adoption through cheap charging costs and tax breaks. At the same time, hybrids and combustion models remain in the mix. The result: EV sales are surging without the regulatory cliff-edge that Europe is heading toward. Mercedes-Benz is not alone in this stance. BMW's CEO Oliver Zipse told Bloomberg last year that the 2035 target was 'no longer realistic" and could trigger a 'massive shrinking" of the industry. What the EU law says The EU mandate requires that from 2035, all new cars sold emit zero CO2. Existing cars are unaffected, and second-hand combustion vehicles can still be traded. Automakers may also continue producing combustion engines, but only if powered by carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, so-called e-fuels. The policy is central to Brussels' climate plan, which targets carbon neutrality in the transport sector by 2050. Also Read : Mercedes Benz rethinks EQS strategy, will Combine EV and ICE S-Class models: Report Local measures already in play Beyond Brussels, cities are already moving to clamp down on emissions. London's Ultra Low Emission Zone charges drivers of non-compliant vehicles £12.50 a day. Other cities, from Barcelona to Beijing, have rolled out low-emission zones to keep polluting trucks and cars out of urban cores. Between ambition and execution Europe's 2035 target is pitched as a bold step toward net-zero. But as Mercedes-Benz and others warn, ambition without flexibility could backfire. Consumers are still price-sensitive, infrastructure is uneven, and technologies like e-fuels remain expensive. For Europe's carmakers, once the envy of the world, the question is no longer whether to decarbonise, but how fast without breaking the industry in the process. Get insights into Upcoming Cars In India, Electric Vehicles, Upcoming Bikes in India and cutting-edge technology transforming the automotive landscape. First Published Date:
Indian Express
17 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi court discharges journalist Rajeev Sharma, 2 others in money laundering case
A Delhi court last month discharged journalist Rajeev Sharma from an offence lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2021 for money laundering stemming from alleged spying for Chinese intelligence and having classified documents related to national security. This was after recording that the ED's prosecution was without jurisdiction in the absence of a scheduled offence. Discharging the three accused in the ED case: Sharma, Chinese national Qing Shi and another Sher Singh alias Raj Bohara, the court observed in its order from July 16 and made public on August 11 that the scheduled offence is the 'very foundation on which a money laundering charge rests' and if the foundation fails, 'the superstructure must collapse'. Sharma was first booked in an FIR in 2020, registered under the Official Secrets Act at the special cell of the Delhi Police, for allegedly maintaining links with Chinese intelligence officers and transmitting sensitive information relating to national security and foreign affairs through electronic means. It was also alleged that he received funds via hawala channels and Western Union. He was arrested in this case in September 2020. According to the police, subsequent probe had revealed that some payments were routed through shell companies which were operated by Chinese nationals, namely Cheng Zhang and Qing Shi. These companies were then allegedly used to deliver hawala funds to Sharma through Raj Bohara alias Sher Singh. The accused, while seeking their discharge from the ED case, had argued that no offence of money laundering is present in the predicate offence and since the Official Secrets Act offences are not scheduled under the PMLA and the only Indian Penal Code (IPC) charge in the predicate FIR is Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), there is no ground to proceed with the prosecution complaint filed under the PMLA. The special PMLA court also recorded that the 'existence of a Scheduled Offence must be real and demonstrable on the basis of the prosecution's case' and it 'cannot be the product of speculative or inferential reasoning'. Relying on the judicial precedent set by the Supreme Court, Additional Sessions Judge Aparna Swami of Patiala House Court reasoned that it is 'abundantly clear that a prosecution under PMLA is not maintainable where the alleged predicate offence is not one of the offences enumerated in the schedule to the PMLA'. 'The commission of a scheduled offence is the very foundation on which a money laundering charge rests. If the foundation fails, the superstructure (herein PMLA case) must collapse. In practical terms, this means that if the only invoked offences in the predicate FIR/ chargesheet are outside the Schedule, the Enforcement Directorate has no jurisdiction to proceed under the PMLA.' The ED had argued that, although the police in the predicate offence did not explicitly charge the accused persons with IPC Section 411 (dishonestly obtaining or retaining stolen property), which is also a scheduled offence to prosecute under PMLA, the factual allegation implicitly makes out such an offence. The argument, however, did not cut teeth with the court, as it observed, '…the arguments of the ED essentially ask the court to look beyond the formal chargesheet and infer that a property offence (theft/ receiving of stolen property) was inherently involved in the accused's act of espionage…This the submissions to be misconceived in law and unsupported by facts on record.' 'The suggestion of a Section 411 IPC offence arises solely from the ED's own conjecture during arguments; however, the same was not part of the case originally made by the investigating authorities…An offence under the Official Secrets Act does not inherently involve theft of information,' the court added. 'The Enforcement Directorate's attempt to retroactively read a section 411 IPC offence into the facts of the present case is not legally tenable…It is beyond the mandate of a PMLA court to enlarge the scope of predicate case by adding new offences on a factual hypothesis.' Discharging the three, the court held that their 'PMLA prosecution is devoid of legal foundation' as the predicate offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120B of the IPC are not Scheduled Offences under the PMLA, adding that 'no amount of inventive argument can make good this fundamental deficiency'.
