E-Paper
ACB questions senior IAS officer’s in-laws in DA case
The ACB questioned IAS officer Vinay Chaubey's family in his disproportionate assets case, revealing illegal wealth accumulation and expenses exceeding income.
State ACB on Thursday questioned IAS officer Vinay Chaubey’s father-in-law, Satyendra Nath Trivedi, and his brother-in-law, Shipij Trivedi. The ACB had summoned both of them in connection with Choubey’s disproportionate assets case.
Additional director general of ACB Priya Choubey could not be reached for her comment on the matter, officials close to the matter informed that several questions were asked from them and an attempt was made to ascertain to what extent they are involved in the matter.
An FIR in the matter was registered on November 24. It was the fourth FIR in which Chaubey has been accused. Earlier, three FIRs registered against him included two related to land scam in Hazaribagh and one related to liquor scam.
The case was registered under Sections 49 and 61 (2) of the BNS and Section 13 (1) (b) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018). Apart from Choubey other accused in the case include Swapna Sanchita (wife), Satyendra Nath Trivedi (father-in-law), Shipij Trivedi (brother-in-law), Priyanka Trivedi (brother-in-law’s wife), Vinay Kumar Singh (associate) and Snigdha Singh (associate’s wife).
According to ACB the action was taken after the analysis of documents obtained from his locations suggested that he amassed wealth through illegal means.
“It is noteworthy that analysis of documents obtained during the investigation, bank account details, and other financial activities, along with statements from relevant parties, reveals that accused Vinay Kumar Chaubey (a first-class public servant) has amassed wealth through illegal means, received commissions, diverted funds with the help of family and friends, amassed substantial wealth, and made significant investments,” a press release issued after registration of fourth FIR informed.
The press release informed that the senior bureacrat’s expenses exceeded his income earned during his service.
“In this regard, the accused’s income and expenditure were calculated based on documents related to his income and expenditure. It is clear that his expenses exceeded his income earned during his service. Furthermore, analysis of his bank accounts reveals that he has incurred negligible household expenses, while the norm is to dedicate one-third of his income to household expenses,” the press release further reads.
