‘How did Rs 100 Cr become Rs 1,100 Cr in 2 to 3 years’, SC questions Enforcement Directorate

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was questioned by the Supreme Court on Tuesday regarding how the proceeds of crime in the Delhi excise policy case went from Rs 100 crore to Rs 1,100 crore in two to three years, as well as why the central agency took so long to question the suspects and why pertinent or direct questions were not asked at the outset.

Before a bench made up of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, claimed that the digital evidence had been erased. In an affidavit submitted to the supreme court in response to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against his arrest in the Delhi excise policy case, the Enforcement Directorate stated that “crucial digital records” and more than 170 mobile phones were altered or destroyed by 36 individuals “Money trail has been deliberately destroyed,” too.

Raju contended that 100 crores worth of financial transactions were sent through hawala networks and spent in different states, asserting that Rs 1,100 was obtained by criminal activity. “Rs 100 crore was proceeds of crime… how did it become Rs 1,100 crore in two or three years…that will be a phenomenal rate of return!” questioned Justice Khanna. In what way did it reach Rs. 1,100 crore? “Wholesaler profit” was Rs 590 crore, Raju retorted. Judge Khanna stated that the discrepancy of approximately Rs 338 crore does not represent the total earnings as proceeds of crime.

Raju stated that although Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was not the subject of the probe at first, and no questions were asked about him, as it went on, his involvement became clear.

The bench said that it is not appropriate for any investigating agency to claim that it takes two years to discover evidence when the interrogation in the Delhi excise policy case took two years. In addition to claiming that Kejriwal’s expenses were partially covered by a person who took cash, Raju contended that it had been discovered that Kejriwal stayed in a seven-star hotel in Goa during the Goa elections. Raju emphasised that the case does not have political motivations.

Raju was urged by Justice Khanna to assume that no questions had been asked about him; the only thing that was wrong was that he hadn’t asked and that you had been dragging out the interrogation. Justice Khanna questioned, “Why did the interrogation take so long, and why weren’t there any direct or pertinent questions asked?” Raju stated that because it was a policy issue, the investigating officers needed to establish what kind of plot the accused had devised. He added that it takes time to fully comprehend the situation.

The hearing is currently underway. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of Delhi is being held under judicial custody in Tihar jail since his detention on March 21. The Supreme Court is debating whether to give him interim parole. In relation to a money laundering case involving the abandoned Delhi excise policy, Kejriwal was taken into custody.

In support of Kejriwal’s arrest, Raju contended that evidence was required and that there might be grounds to believe an arrest should be made based on the evidence. Raju was questioned by Justice Datta about how to weigh the evidence against the accused. “If there is evidence that the accused is not guilty, you intentionally remove evidence that does not support the accused. This is an executive act; by making an arrest, you are violating Article 21. Is it therefore not necessary for you to consider the materials that you own that do not indicate guilt? Both must be balanced. You can’t just say, I have this material in my possession, then leave out a section of it”. “Why are you arguing that you have the material in your possession?” Justice Datta said of Raju.

Raju was informed by Justice Khanna that the Enforcement Department had submitted a closure report, that the investigating officer had completed a review, and that the Section 19 (of the PMLA) standard was higher than in previous criminal cases, including those involving the Customs Act. Justice Khanna remarked, “You can argue that I will meet that benchmark, but the benchmark over here is higher.”

Raju stated, “I have thought about all the material, but my reasons to believe must be limited to that which leads me to believe that I am guilty.” Whatever I have thought about need not be reflected in my reasons to believe.

You might also be interested in –Delhi HC dismisses PIL for ‘Extraordinary Bail’ of Arvind Kejriwal, Levies Rs 75,000 fine