The Enforcement Directorate, in connection with the Aircel-Maxis deal in the 2G scam has issued yet another summon to Karti Chidambaram, son of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram. This would be the third summon that has been sent to Karti even as the ED refuses to answer Chidambaram Junior’s queries sent by his lawyer.
The ongoing probe against Karti Chidambaram’s ‘alleged’ financial irregularities yielded no results and seem directionless, even as ED officials refused to reply to a letter asking them to “explain the validity” of summons issued.
Newsd, has accessed the letter written by Karti’s lawyer and sources close to the aggrieved party say, “ED has sent the same verbatim summons without answering any of the questions raised by Karti’s lawyer. It’s void in law.”
The letter was sent after Karti received a second summon and the ED did not reply to the letter and instead served him a thirs summon, which the lawyer claim is a “void practice.”
Sources also say that the summons are a result of a “political vendetta” by one of the ED official as his appointment was opposed by the then finance minister P Chidambaram. The same sources also say, “It is misuse of authority and a gross misinterpretation of the powers vested under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).”
The content of the letter are as follows-
The summons refers to an ECIR/05/DZ2012 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002. My client is not aware of what this ECIR pertains to. Further, an investigation under Section 3 of the PML Act can be undertaken only in respect of a “scheduled offence” that is under investigation. The summons does not mention the “scheduled offence” under investigation. Further, the investigation has to be for ‘proceeds of the crime’. There is no mention of what ‘proceeds of crime’ are being investigated. There is also no reference as to how my client is actually involved in any process or activity connected with a scheduled offence or the alleged proceeds of the crime under investigation.
In the absence of the conditions for invoking the provisions of the said Act, no summons can be issued to my client. Any inquiry or questionnaire seeking information from my client for the purposes of the said Act would be without jurisdiction and would amount to a fishing and roving inquiry.
I therefore request you to let my client know
(i) the ‘scheduled offence’ that is being investigated;
(ii) the proceeds of the crime; and
(iii) how my client is knowingly a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property.