New Delhi [India], April 11 : The Delhi High Court has underscored the need for careful examination of whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can progress to the framing of charges before charges in the predicate offense are formally established.
In an interim order, the court instructed the Special Court to delay the framing of charges to a date beyond the one set by the High Court.
This decision came in response to a petition filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram. He requested the deferment of arguments in the Chinese Visa scam and Aircel-Maxis deal cases, both of which are currently being prosecuted by the Enforcement Directorate.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in an order issued on April 9, observed that the discharge of the petitioner in the predicate offense would, prima facie, have a significant impact on the trial of the PMLA case. The court noted that if the petitioner is discharged in the predicate offense, the charge of money laundering against him would not stand.
Emphasizing the need for further deliberation, Justice Dudeja directed the Special Judge to postpone the arguments on the framing of charges to a date beyond the one set by the High Court.
The plea moved by Karti Chidambaram contests the trial court's rejection of his application to delay the proceedings, highlighting the necessity of resolving the predicate offenses before advancing further.
Through this petition, Chidambaram seeks to defer arguments on the charges until the trial court determines whether charges will be framed against him in the alleged predicate offenses.
Represented by Sidharth Luthra, senior Advocate and Arshdeep Singh Khurana, advocate instructed by Akshat Gupta, Advocate, Karti has challenged the trial court's March 28 order that dismissed his application for a stay on the ongoing proceedings or postponement of arguments on charges in these matters.
Senior Advocate Luthra argued that the trial court failed to recognize a critical legal principle: the initiation and continuation of proceedings for a money laundering offense depend on the existence of a scheduled crime and the generation of proceeds from such a crime. He emphasized that if an individual is discharged or acquitted in the scheduled offense, or if the offense is successfully quashed, the money laundering charges cannot be sustained.
On Monday, Senior Advocate representing Karti Chidambaram presented arguments in the case, while Zoheb Hossian advocated on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over the proceedings, engaging in an extensive discussion before adjourning the matter to April 9, 2025, for further hearing.
In the Aircel-Maxis case, the Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against Karti Chidambaram, M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (ASCPL), and others. This action was based on an ECIR recorded following an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, according to an ED press statement.
In the Chinese Visa scam case, the 2022 ED investigation revolves around allegations of Rs50 lakh being paid as kickbacks to Karti Chidambaram and his close associate, S. Bhaskararaman. The payment was allegedly made by a senior executive of Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd. (TSPL), which was involved in setting up a power plant in Punjab, as per the CBI FIR.