E-Paper
ED arrests Punjab AAP MLA Jaswant Singh Gajjanmajra in money laundering case
Aam Aadmi Party MLA Jaswant Singh Gajjanmajra, who is accused of ₹41-crore bank fraud, had evaded four ED summons; to be produced in Mohali court
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday took Aam Aadmi Party’s Amargarh MLA Jaswant Singh Gajjanmajra, 60, into custody in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case registered against him last year.
ED sources said that Gajjanmajra was taken into custody as had evaded four summons for questioning in the case. He would be produced in a Mohali court on Monday evening, they said.
The Jalandhar ED team took Gajjanmajra into custody when he was addressing an AAP workers’ meeting at Amargarh in Malerkotla district in the morning.
Also read: Punjab Police yet to arrest farmers who forced officials to burn stubble
In September 2022, an ED team, had raided Gajjanmajra’s house besides a school and a cattle feed factory run by his family at Amargarh.
The ED had registered the PMLA case against him after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had searched his properties in connection with a ₹40.92-crore bank fraud case last year. A sum of ₹16.57 lakh, 88 foreign currency notes and incriminating documents were recovered during the searches, the CBI had said.
Gajjanmajra is among seven people and companies named as accused in the bank fraud case.
Balwant Singh, Kulwant Singh, Tejinder Singh, M/s Tara Health Foods Ltd through its directors, M/s Tara Corporation Ltd (renamed as Malaudh Agro Ltd), and public servants/private persons are among the accused.
The CBI probe was conducted after a Bank of India branch in Ludhiana complained against Gajjanmajra’s firm in Gaunspura, Malerkotla. The firm, which was engaged in trading of foodgrains, was sanctioned loans by the bank at four intervals from 2011-14. The bank’s complaint said through its directors, the firm had concealed “hypothecated stock and diverted book debts with malafide and dishonest intention so that the same were not made available to the creditor bank for inspection and for effecting recovery as secured creditor”.
The bank said that the loan availed had not been used for the purpose for which it was taken.
