[ad_1]
In a lengthy reply, ED claimed there were reasons to believe on the basis of material in possession that the AAP convener was guilty of the offence of money laundering. On Wednesday, the court will hear Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest in the money laundering case.
The agency opposed any relief and said the CM “is the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi excise scam in collusion with ministers of Delhi Govt, AAP leaders and other persons”.He was directly involved in the formulation of the Excise Policy 2021-22, it claimed.
ED latched on to Kejriwal’s submission when he argued in person before the trial court that he didn’t oppose ED’s plea for custody. “In light of the above submission made by the petitioner that he has no objection to the custody/remand being extended further, the petitioner has waived his right to question his custody as on today and he cannot now be allowed to argue that his custody as on today is illegal,” the agency stated.
ED said the Delhi CM “intentionally disobeyed” its nine summonses and did not join the investigation based on “one flimsy ground and another.” The agency further said that statements of various persons engaged in the election campaign-related activities by AAP in Goa revealed that cash payments were made to them for their work done as survey workers, area managers, assembly managers, etc.
“These persons and activities related to the election campaign were overall managed by Vijay Nair and Durgesh Pathak, AAP, MLA in Delhi. This shows the dissipation/utilisation of proceeds of crime by the representative of Manish Sisodia in Goa elections,” ED claimed in the reply.
The agency further stated there was “irrefutable evidence that Rs 45 crore cash was moved through Hawala from various channels (all linked to the South group) to the AAP’s Goa campaign.”
The petition is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Wednesday.
Last month, the high court had refused to grant interim relief to Kejriwal, saying the matter raised important issues that cannot be “summarily” decided without seeking the agency’s stand and had asked ED to file its reply to the challenge to his arrest and the subsequent remand to the ED’s custody.
In the reply, ED further said after filing of the present petition, the petitioner was further remanded to its custody by way of a well-reasoned and detailed remand order till April 1 when he was subsequently sent to judicial custody by the trial court, which was not opposed by his counsel.
[ad_2]
Source link