E-Paper
ED summons AAP MLA Raman Arora in PMLA probe
Federal agency’s case stems from corruption and extortion cases registered against Jalandhar central legislator
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday summoned Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Raman Arora to its Jalandhar-based regional office on June 2 in connection with a money laundering probe linked to two corruption and extortion cases registered against him, people familiar with the matter said.
The ED probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act stems from two cases registered against Arora by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and Jalandhar police.
Raman Arora is the third AAP MLA to come under the ED scanner this month. Earlier, cabinet minister and AAP state president Aman Arora’s name surfaced in the federal agency’s probe into alleged change of land use (CLU) fraud linked to major real estate projects across Punjab. Minister Sanjeev Arora was arrested by the ED on May 9 from his official residence in Chandigarh after raids related to an alleged ₹100 crore GST fraud-linked money-laundering case.
Arora said he was out of the city and had not yet seen the summons. “I am currently out of the city. I will react only after going through the summons received at my residence,” he said.
The Jalandhar central legislator was arrested by the vigilance bureau (VB) on May 23 last year in a Prevention of Corruption Act case involving former assistant town planner (ATP) of the municipal corporation, Sukhdev Vashisht, who was allegedly caught demanding a ₹30,000 bribe.
As per the VB FIR, Arora allegedly used Vashisht to issue bogus notices and extort money from targeted traders, businessmen and commercial property owners.
Arora is facing two cases, one registered by VB under Sections 238 (destruction of evidence), 308 (2) (extortion by threatening grievous hurt) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Arora is also facing another FIR registered at Rama Mandi police station under Sections 308(2), 308(6) (extortion by threatening false accusations of serious crimes) and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the BNS for alleged extortion of a parking contractor.
“We have been conducting a detailed probe into the FIR registered by the VB, as the proceeds of crime generated through extortion from traders and businessmen also came to light. The concerned legislator has been asked to join the investigation,” an ED official, privy to the development, said.
The official, who didn’t wish to be named, added that the VB has already submitted a 900-page chargesheet in the local court against Arora and others containing testimonies of the complainants and alleged victims.
He was granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana high court in the corruption case on September 3 last year. However, he was subsequently booked in an alleged extortion case by the Jalandhar police. Arora secured bail in this case on September 22 after spending four months in jail.
The state government had recently restored his security cover and allowed him to resume party activities in his constituency.
Chargesheet alleges misuse of political influence
In its 900-page chargesheet, the VB accused Arora of misusing his political power to extort money from local traders and commercial property owners.
The state government had already granted permission to prosecute Arora. According to the chargesheet, Arora, in connivance with ATP Vashisht, allegedly issued building violation notices to commercial and residential projects, which were later resolved after exchange for bribes. Builders were reportedly directed to meet Arora to settle the issues.
During a raid at Arora’s residence on May 23 last year, the VB seized ₹6 lakh in cash, 1.2 kg of gold ornaments, and several incriminating documents. The bureau also recovered 75-80 violation notices, allegedly issued as part of the extortion racket.
“The victims from whom a huge sum of money was allegedly extorted were intimidated with stringent action from the enforcement agencies like the VB and the crime investigation agency (CIA),” the chargesheet said, adding that demands initially ranged around ₹10 lakh, but the settlement was reached between ₹2 and ₹5 lakh.”
