Money laundering case: Shiv Sena MLA’s close aide sent to ED custody till December 9

ED had submitted that the three-day remand granted by the sessions court on November 26 was insufficient as both Saturday and Sunday were non-working days

A special court set up to try cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Monday remanded Amit Chandole, a close aide of Shiv Sena member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Pratap Sarnaik, to the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) till December 9, for further interrogation in a money laundering case.

The case against Amit Chandole was registered based on an October 15 complaint by Ramesh Iyer a former employee of Tops Security Group. (HT File)

ED was given Chandole’s custody after a single bench of the Bombay high court (HC) set aside the order of a holiday court which had earlier rejected ED’s plea to extend his custody and had instead remanded him to judicial custody. ED had later approached the HC to set aside the holiday court’s order.

Justice Prithviraj K Chavan observed, “Having taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding charge of the holiday court has not exercised his jurisdiction with due application of mind and approached to the matter in a very casual manner. I am mindful of the fact that the liberty of an individual is of paramount importance. However, at the same time, a balance needs to be struck between an individual’s right as well as there should be no prejudice to the free, fair and full investigation. Material placed on record, prima facie indicates complicity and nexus of respondent No.2 (Chandole) in the alleged crime.” The court then directed the sessions court to rehear the matter at 3pm.

ED through additional solicitor-general Anil Singh had submitted that the three-day remand granted by the sessions court on November 26 was insufficient as both Saturday and Sunday were non-working days, and the investigating agency could not go through the vast amount of records which included computer data, bank accounts and various other transactions and communications by Chandole with regards to the amount which his account was credited with from the Topsgrup Security firm.

In October, a former employee of the security agency had lodged a complaint alleging that Chandole was the recipient of a large chunk of payments made by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to the security agency for providing security personnel.

Chandole’s counsel advocate Rizwan Merchant had, however, opposed the revision application of the ED before the HC and argued that there was no perversity in the sessions courts order and it was a well-reasoned order. Merchant had argued that because the ED had failed to provide any incriminating evidence against Chandole’s complicity in the transactions the revision application was not maintainable under section 19 (1) of the PML Act which was invoked to book Chandole.

The case against Chandole was registered based on an October 15 complaint by Ramesh Iyer a former employee of Tops Security Group. Iyer has alleged that Chandole was the beneficiary of a 2014 contract between the Tops group and MMRDA. The contract was for the supply of security guards and some part of the amount paid by MMRDA went to private accounts of Chandole.

ED has claimed that from the investigation conducted so far it appears that Topsgrup obtained the contract from MMRDA in collusion with Pratap Sarnaik through illegal means by a well thought out strategy. These illegal manoeuvres aimed to get additional inadmissible benefit by inflating the bills at the cost of MMRDA and illegal cash gratification to Sarnaik for facilitating this scam. Against this active role and criminal conspiracy, Sarnaik used to get 50% profit earned out of the said contract through Chandole.

Corroborating this sequence of events, Chandole accepted receipt of cash from Topsgrup. The billing was done by Tops Group by inflating the number of contracted security guards deployed. Therefore, part of the amount received by Topsgrup from MMRDA appears to be proceeds of crime. The 50% profit of the said contract was being shared by Topsgrup with Sarnaik through Chandole and sometimes, through bank transfer to the account of a third person. In such a way, Chandole appears to be the recipient of proceeds of crime fraudulently obtained by Topsgrup from MMRDA, ED alleged.