2010 CWG 'scam': Delhi court accepts ED closure report in case against Suresh Kalmadi
The acceptance of the closure report brings to end the money laundering angle in the alleged scam, which took place 15 years ago.
The allegations of corruption in conducting the 2010-Commonwealth Games triggered a huge political uproar in the country, leading to filing of several criminal and money laundering cases, including the present one.
Kalmadi and others were accused of misconduct in award and execution of two important contracts for the games.
Special judge Sanjeev Aggarwal noted the CBI had already closed the corruption case, based on which the ED started its money laundering probe and accepted the report, which also named CWG OC's then COO, Vijay Kumar Gautam, its then treasurer, A K Matto, Event Knowledge Service , Switzerland, and CEO, Craig Gordon MeLatchey.
The judge noted ED's submission that the offence of money laundering was not found during its investigation.
"Since during the investigations, the prosecution has failed to make out a offence under section 3 of the PMLA... as no offence under section 3 of the PMLA has been made out or has been committed, despite discreet investigations by the ED, therefore, there is no reason to continue with the present ECIR, as a consequence, the closure report filed by the ED stands accepted," the judge held.
The sole money laundering investigation was initiated by the ED based on the case lodged by the CBI.
According to the CBI, the works contracts related to Commonwealth Games were Games Workforce Service and Games Planning, Project & Risk Management Services .
An undue pecuniary gain was caused by the accused persons to the to the consortium of EKS and Ernst and Young, by way of awarding the two contracts in a deliberate and wrongful manner and caused corresponding loss of ₹30 crore to OC, CWG, the CBI alleged.
The CBI later filed a closure report in January 2014, saying "no incriminating evidence surfaced during the investigation in the matter" and the allegations in the FIR could not be substantiated against the accused persons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 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'.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
A ‘Special 26'-style heist in Gurgaon as gunmen posing as auditors loot finance office
Around 6 pm on Saturday, three men, one carrying a firearm, entered a Manappuram Finance office in Sector 5, off Sheetla Mata Road, claiming to be auditors. Within minutes, they brandished the weapon, assaulted two employees and fled with Rs 9 lakh in cash and gold, the police said. 'They entered the company office on Sheetla Mata Road, posing as auditors and showing a fake auditor ID to the security guard. One of the individuals was armed. The suspects brandished the weapon, robbed the office, and assaulted two employees, including assistant manager Krishna, with the butt of the gun, causing minor injuries,' a police spokesperson said Saturday night. The office, which offers loans against gold, confirmed that the stolen cash and gold were insured. Police teams from the Sector 5 station and other units remained at the scene late into the night, conducting investigations. Further details were not immediately available. The incident recalls previous high-profile robberies in India where criminals disguised themselves as government officials to gain access. In 2017, Delhi police arrested three suspected members of the Neeraj Bawania gang after they allegedly posed as CBI officers and attempted to rob a jeweller's home in Karol Bagh, an operation inspired by the Bollywood film Special 26. In that case, the suspects, one dressed in a khaki uniform, held the family at gunpoint before fleeing when a resident raised an alarm. In 2023, a dacoity gang in Hyderabad carried out a similar heist, posing as Income Tax officers and stealing gold worth Rs 60 lakh from a jewellery manufacturer in Secunderabad. That robbery, also modelled after Special 26, involved suspects showing fake ID cards, seizing workers' phones and locking them in a room before escaping with 17 gold coins. Police in Gurgaon said they are examining whether Saturday's heist bears similarities to those earlier cases.
Hans India
6 hours ago
- Hans India
Gunmen fire several rounds at YouTuber Elvish Yadav's Gurugram home
Gurugram: Unidentified attackers opened fire outside the residence of controversial YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Haryana's Gurugram early Sunday morning, triggering panic in the upscale locality. Police said the firing took place between 5.30 and 6 a.m. when three bike-borne assailants sprayed more than two dozen bullets at Yadav's house before fleeing. The bullets struck the ground and the first floors of the residence. Bigg Boss OTT winner Yadav, who lives on the second and third floors, was not present during the attack. His caretaker and some family members were inside at the time, but no one was injured. "Today, on 17.08.2025, at around 5:30/6:00 a.m., some unknown persons fired at a house under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sector-56, Gurugram. No person has been shot in this incident," Gurugram Police said in a statement. Additionally, the attackers are absconding. Police teams rushed to the spot, gathered forensic evidence, and began scanning CCTV footage from nearby areas. Officials said legal action is being initiated, and further investigation will proceed once Yadav's family registers a formal complaint. Relatives of the YouTuber said he had not received any threats before the incident. Yadav is currently outside Haryana for work. According to the investigation so far, the attack was carried out by three individuals riding a motorcycle. Multiple police teams are stationed at the site to track down the assailants. Yadav has been surrounded by controversies since he was arrested over allegations of using snake venom as a recreational drug at parties he allegedly organised. The YouTuber, who was later released on bail, was named along with other accused in an FIR lodged at Sector 49 police station in Noida on November 3, 2023, following a complaint by animal rights NGO People for Animals (PFA). Based on the FIR filed by the Gautam Buddha Nagar Police, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also launched a parallel probe against the influencer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and questioned him on various matters, including details of rave parties, the supply of snake venom, and its sources. Earlier in the month, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against the YouTuber. As per the computerised case status reflected on the apex court's website, Elvish's SLP is tentatively listed for hearing on September 23. Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, instructed by advocates Raman Yadav and Aman Jha, represented Elvish before the Supreme Court.
