An assistant director of the Enforcement Director (ED) was remanded to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) custody by a special court in Mumbai till August 14 in a bribery case.
The assistant director Sandeep Singh Yadav was arrested by the premier investigative agency on Thursday for allegedly taking a bribe of ₹20 lakh from a Mumbai-based jeweller.
Yadav allegedly had threatened the Mumbai-based bullion dealer with the arrest of his son in a money laundering case.
Special CBI judge SP Naik after reviewing the first information report (FIR) and case diary said that there are good reasons to believe that the allegations against the enforcement directorate officer are well founded.
The CBI reported that on August 4, the Enforcement Directorate carried out searches at the premises of Vipul Thakkar, who operates a bullion business named V S Gold in connection with a money laundering investigation.
Read: Manish Sisodia walks out of Tihar jail after bail granted in excise policy case
{{/usCountry}}Read: Manish Sisodia walks out of Tihar jail after bail granted in excise policy case
{{/usCountry}}Yadav is accused of threatening to arrest Thakkar's son and initially demanding ₹25 lakh. After some negotiations, the demand was lowered to ₹20 lakh.
However, Thakkar reported the matter to the CBI following which the agency began its investigation and found the allegations true.
Conspiracy hatched by assistant director
“The verification of the complaint in the presence of independent witnesses, prima facie revealed criminal conspiracy hatched by Sandeep Singh, assistant director, Enforcement Directorate HQ, New Delhi with unknown others to obtain undue advantage from the complainant of ₹20 lakh by himself and through other persons from the complainant Vipul Thakkar for not arresting his son Nihar Thakkar in the matter being investigated by the ED,” the CBI mentioned in its FIR.
The Mumbai unit of the CBI apprehended Yadav, officer from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Delhi while he was accepting a bribe.
The CBI informed the court that the investigation was at a critical juncture and that Yadav's custody was necessary. Yadav through his lawyer argued that he was being falsely accused.
He also claimed that no cash was found at his residence and said that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and provide his voice sample, asserting that his custody was therefore unnecessary.
With PTI inputs