ED freezes Rs.822 crore-worth fixed deposits of Satyam Computers
Enforcement Directorate today issued attachment orders freezing fixed deposits worth Rs 822 crore of B Ramalinga Raju, founder of scam-hit Satyam computers, and his family in connection with its probe in the money laundering case.business Updated: Oct 18, 2012 21:28 IST
Enforcement Directorate today issued attachment orders freezing fixed deposits worth Rs 822 crore of B Ramalinga Raju, founder of scam-hit Satyam computers, and his family in connection with its probe in the money laundering case.
The orders issued by the Hyderabad zonal office of the agency specify that these deposits, held in the accounts of Ms Satyam Computers and Services Limited (SCSL), were being attched as it has identified these value of assets as "proceeds of crime" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The accounts of SCSL, according to the ED attachment order, in Andhra bank, Bank of Baroda, IDBI and ING Vysya have been freezed, even as the agency has filed a complaint in this regard with the Adjudicating authority of the PMLA in Delhi.
The ED attached the accounts of SCSL as its probe found that Raju and his associates "wrongfully" offloaded inflated shares of the said company by way of sale or pledging of shares, the order alleged.
According to the order, Raju and his family members allegedly "lured" investors into buying these shares by publishing "false" information about the financial credentials of the scam-hit company.
"Trail of loans derived from front companies revealed that Rs 822 crores out of Rs 2171.45 crore found their way to Ms SCSL and were used for day-to-day expenses like payment of salaries among others.
"Since this amount subsists with Ms SCSL and constitutes a part of the loans that were derived or obtained by pledge of inflated shares of Ms SCSL, which is, Rs 2171.45 crores they fall within the mischief of proceeds of crime under the PMLA and are liable for attachment," the order said.
An attachment under PMLA ensures that such assets cannot be used by the accused and he/she cannot take any benefits from these properties, and such an order can be challenged by the accused at the adjudicating authority of the said Act.