INX Media case: Tribunal upholds attachment of Karti’s assets

AN appellant tribunal that deals with the money laundering cases has upheld the Enforcement board of directors’s fond regard of senior u.s. Congress leader and former finance government minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram’s properties including a Jor Bagh house and bank deposits worths several crores in connection with the INX Media case.The federal agency had, in October 2018, attached assets worth ₹22 crore including Karti’s share (50%) in the Jor Bagh house and bank accounts in Chennai. The ED has alleged that P Chidambaram and his son Karti were the beneficial owners of several shell companies incorporated in India and abroad to transfer bribesfor a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval given to the INX Media group during the former’s tenure as the Union finance minister.The attachment was challenged by Karti in 2019 arguing that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachments can continue only for 365 days after confirmation unless a case is pending before the court. He pointed out that the ED filed a charge sheet 430 days after the attachment was confirmed by an adjudicating authority, contending that this lapse made the confirmation invalid. He cited a Supreme Court ruling in S Kasi Vs State to back his argument.The Tribunal, in an interim order issued in September 2019, had directed that status quo be maintained on the attachment order including against eviction of the owner from the said house.“The protection given through the interim Order dated 03.09.2019 to the residential property of Appellant (Karti) against the eviction from the said property and against the notice issued under Section 8 (4) of the PMLA, cannot be continued with on the disposal of the Appeal,” the tribunal said in its order issued on October 29.Further rejecting Karti’s legal team’s arguments, bench of members Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra of the appellate tribunal said in its order on October 29 - “The question that if the ED could file the prosecution complaint on June 1, 2020, then why could they not do so within 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order (attachment order) would not impact the answer to the moot question that the coverage of the order dated January 10, 2022 (supra) was wide enough as to allow the filing of the Prosecution Complaint (charge sheet) under PMLA beyond 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order, as long as, such period fell within the extended period of limitation from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022”.It, however, added that as per a 2022 Supreme Court order in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary possession of a property can be taken “only” if exceptional reasons exist.When contacted on Friday, Karti refused to comment on the developments..