In a recent hearing at the Delhi High Court, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) countered Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s request to defer the framing of charges in two significant money laundering cases. The plea, heard by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, challenges the trial court’s decision dated March 28, which declined Karti’s applications for postponement of charge-framing discussions.
Karti Chidambaram’s defense argued that without the charges being determined in the connected Chinese visa and Aircel-Maxis cases managed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the trial court should not proceed with the money laundering accusations. They contended that the fate of the scheduled offences directly impacts the proceedings of the money laundering cases.
However, the ED’s counsel refuted this position, citing Supreme Court precedents that establish the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as independent of the underlying scheduled offences. According to the ED, the trial should proceed unless Karti is completely exonerated in the associated cases.
The ongoing debate also touched on procedural aspects, with the ED’s lawyer emphasizing that Karti could contest the charge framing in the trial court itself. “The accused will get the chance to argue why charges should not be framed,” stated the ED counsel, implying that a delay in the trial was not warranted based solely on the ongoing proceedings in the scheduled offences.
Adding complexity to the case, Karti Chidambaram’s plea highlights the foundational issues of the ED’s case against him, arguing that if an individual is acquitted or the scheduled offence is quashed, then the corresponding money laundering charges should be invalidated. The plea asserts that the allegations of money laundering are contingent upon the existence and proof of the scheduled offence.
This high-profile case continues to draw attention as it involves significant political figures and alleges misuse of authority in the issuance of visas and approvals in foreign investment deals during the tenure of Karti’s father, P Chidambaram, as Union Home Minister and later as Finance Minister. The allegations include improper facilitation in the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals and irregularities in the Aircel-Maxis deal approval process, purportedly leading to undue benefits and kickbacks.
The Delhi High Court is scheduled to resume discussions on April 15, where further arguments will be presented. Justice Dudeja’s forthcoming decision will likely be a pivotal moment in this legal battle, setting the course for how these intertwined cases will proceed.
