The Enforcement Directorate (ED) will step in soon to investigate the money laundering aspect of the corruption case registered against former CBI judge, Sudhir Parmar, his nephew, Ajay Parmar and director of real estate company, M3M India Pvt Ltd, Roop Bansal by Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Panchkula.
Also read: ED searches offices of ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ makers in Chennai: Reports
The central agency will conduct investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after registering an enforcement case information report (ECIR) based on the April 17 first information report (FIR) registered by ACB under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy.
Parmar, suspended on April 27, after being booked on April 17, has been accused of alleged favouritism in his treatment of real estate developers Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of IREO Group, as per the ACB’s FIR.
The Bansals and Goyal have been named as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED in cases pending before the special CBI court -- a court that was presided over by Parmar.
{{/usCountry}}The Bansals and Goyal have been named as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED in cases pending before the special CBI court -- a court that was presided over by Parmar.
{{/usCountry}}Parmar held charge of the CBI court in Panchkula, and was also special judge under the PMLA, Panchkula.
Parmar and Roop Bansal did not respond to text messages sent on May 10 seeking a comment. Sameer Chaudhary, lawyer for the real estate development company IREO in an email on May 11 night denied allegations of any misconduct or wrongdoing and participation in any offence, as alleged or otherwise.
An additional district and sessions rank judge, Parmar was presiding over the trial of several CBI and ED cases involving real estate developers, retired bureaucrats and politicians. He was questioned by an ACB team on April 18 . He was placed under suspension by the high court on April 27.
The FIR was registered on the basis of “reliable source information”, WhatsApp chats and audio recordings of the accused, according to people familiar with the investigation against Parmar.
ED registered a case under the PMLA and arrested Lalit Goyal, the vice-chairman and managing director of realty giant IREO Group in November 2021 for allegedly cheating home buyers and others. In February 2022, ED presented a prosecution complaint (challan) against Goyal in the special PMLA court in Panchkula. “The source provided screenshots of WhatsApp chats between Parmar and another person in which he demands ₹5 crore to ₹7 crore for helping the M3M owners in ED cases and requests the person chatting with him to receive the bribe on his behalf. In the same chat, the person says that ₹5 crore has already been given to Sudhir Parmar by the accused in the IREO case, the FIR said.
Also read: Top court cautions ED: Don’t create an atmosphere of fear
The FIR said that in another audio recording, Sudhir Parmar is asking someone for ₹1.5 crore ( ₹50 lakh per head) as illegal gratification for meeting the accused. The FIR said that in three other recordings provided by the source, Sudhir Parmar, the FIR said, always spoke to Bansal and other accused of M3M and IREO using Ajay Parmar’s mobile phone and on WhatsApp and FaceTime calls
“More audio recordings provided by the source reveal that Parmar, during a conversation with an unknown person, admits/claims that he did not let Roop Bansal become an accused in ED cases. In another recording with Roop Bansal, he even promises that if he (Roop Bansal) is let off in the CBI case, then he (Parmar) would not let him (Roop Bansal) become accused in the ED case. In another recording pertaining to property worth ₹1,200 crore, Parmar claims that he has spoken to Sunil Yadav (officer of ED) and he would not allow it to be attached provided some justification for a transaction was shown,” the FIR said.