DK Shivakumar: ED trying to re-investigate the same cases which have already been probed
He requested that the entire investigation along with the continuing probe, including the issuance of summons in the 2020 case, be quashed
Karnataka Congress president DK Shivakumar has told the Delhi High Court that the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering investigation is identical in both 2018 and 2020 cases and that the agency is trying to re-investigate the same cases which have already been probed.
The senior Congress leader filed his submission in his plea challenging the investigation initiated by the probe agency against him in a money laundering case. Shivakumar has challenged the proceedings initiated by ED in the year 2020, arguing that the agency is "re-investigating the same offence" which it had already investigated in a previous case registered by it in 2018.
He requested that the entire investigation along with the continuing probe, including the issuance of summons in the 2020 case, be quashed.
Shivakumar stated in his plea that the offence in 2018 Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was under section 120B of IPC and the allegations were that he abused his official position and conspired with others to launder illegal money acquired while serving as Minister and MLA in Karnataka between 1989 and 2019.
The offence in the second ECIR alleges acquisition of assets by him during the period between 2013 and 2018 disproportionate to his known sources of income.
This implied that the investigation under the PMLA offence was identical in both the cases, Shivakumar submitted. The Congress leader has said that ED had already investigated the issue of disproportionate assets for the period between 1989 and 2019, adding that investigation in second the case pertained to the period 2013 to 2018, which was already investigated by the agency earlier.
Shivkumar added said that nothing prevented the probe agency from including the allegations pertaining to disproportionate assets in the prosecution complaint filed in the first ECIR. “The only conclusion that can be drawn is that ED could not find sufficient evidence to charge the Petitioner on the aspect of disproportionate assets after thorough investigation,” the submissions read.
His petition has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, by virtue of which the schedule of the Act was amended and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was included under the anti-money laundering law.
Earlier, ED had opposed the plea and submitted that it was premature and that no fundamental rights of the Congress leader have been violated to warrant interference under Article 226 at the stage of summons.