Delhi Court Takes Cognisance Of ED Chargesheet In RCom Money Laundering Case

A Delhi court on Monday took cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against former Reliance Communications (RCom) Director Punit Narendra Garg and other accused in connection with an alleged Rs 40,000 crore bank fraud-linked money laundering case.

The Rouse Avenue Court, while taking cognisance of the charge sheet filed by the federal anti-money laundering agency, listed the matter for further hearing on July 4. The court also dismissed Garg’s bail plea.

A detailed order is awaited and is expected to be uploaded on the court’s website.

Garg was arrested by the ED on January 29 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Earlier, the court had rejected his plea seeking interim bail on medical grounds.

The former RCom director had sought temporary release for medical examination and treatment at a private hospital. His counsel had argued that before his arrest, he was undergoing treatment at Mumbai’s Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and had been advised intensive medical examination, including capsule endoscopy.

ED’s Allegations

According to the ED, Garg played an active role in the acquisition and possession of the alleged proceeds of crime.

The agency also accused him of concealing, layering and dissipating funds allegedly generated through the purported bank fraud.

The agency has alleged that during his tenure in senior managerial and directorial positions at Reliance Communications, Garg was involved in the diversion of funds through multiple foreign subsidiaries and offshore entities linked to the company.

The ED further claimed that the proceeds of crime were diverted to offshore entities.

The agency alleged that the funds were used for personal expenses, including financing the overseas education of his children. It also alleged that an $8.3 million luxury condominium in Manhattan, New York, was fraudulently sold.

According to the agency, the sale proceeds were siphoned to a Dubai-based entity.

According to the agency, the remittance was made through a sham investment arrangement. The agency alleged that the transaction took place without the knowledge of the Resolution Professional. It also claimed that the remittance occurred without the Resolution Professional’s consent while overseeing Reliance Communications’ corporate insolvency resolution process.

Also Read: Singapore Court Grants Interim Relief To Byju Raveendran Pending Appeal