sainimanoj704
[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Aam Aadmi Party was non-committal on whether party boss and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal would appear before the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday to record his statement in a case of alleged money laundering related to the excise case for which the party is being investigated.
Asked by reporters, party sources said they were examining legal options and would act as per the law. Kejriwal had skipped ED’s summons for November 2 and December 21.
It was a query from the Supreme Court as to why the agency had not questioned the AAP leadership in connection with the excise policy case when it had alleged that the bribes were used for the Goa campaign that led the ED to inform the court that it intended to question AAP’s leadership, setting the stage for Kejriwal’s summons.
The SC had ‘tentatively’ accepted the ED’s allegation that part of the Rs 338 crore of alleged bribes generated from the Delhi liquor ‘scam’ was used for AAP’s campaign in the Goa elections.
Interestingly, it was the claim of Kejriwal’s close aide and former deputy CM Manish Sisodia that he was not the ‘end beneficiary’ of the ‘proceeds of crime’ that had led the SC to question the ED about the role of the AAP leadership in the alleged scam.
In response to the first summons issued to him by the ED, Kejriwal had written to the agency that it was not clear whether he had been called as an accused or a witness in the money laundering case. Kejriwal’s statement, if and when he decides to appear for questioning, will be considered as an affidavit before a court since Section 50(1) of PMLA requires the person summoned to be examined on oath, produce records as demanded and record evidence on affidavits.
Meanwhile, the ED on Tuesday conducted searches at AAP legislator from Okhla Amanatullah Khan’s premises in an alleged Waqf Board recruitment scam. This was the second time that the agency searched his premises.
Asked by reporters, party sources said they were examining legal options and would act as per the law. Kejriwal had skipped ED’s summons for November 2 and December 21.
It was a query from the Supreme Court as to why the agency had not questioned the AAP leadership in connection with the excise policy case when it had alleged that the bribes were used for the Goa campaign that led the ED to inform the court that it intended to question AAP’s leadership, setting the stage for Kejriwal’s summons.
The SC had ‘tentatively’ accepted the ED’s allegation that part of the Rs 338 crore of alleged bribes generated from the Delhi liquor ‘scam’ was used for AAP’s campaign in the Goa elections.
Interestingly, it was the claim of Kejriwal’s close aide and former deputy CM Manish Sisodia that he was not the ‘end beneficiary’ of the ‘proceeds of crime’ that had led the SC to question the ED about the role of the AAP leadership in the alleged scam.
In response to the first summons issued to him by the ED, Kejriwal had written to the agency that it was not clear whether he had been called as an accused or a witness in the money laundering case. Kejriwal’s statement, if and when he decides to appear for questioning, will be considered as an affidavit before a court since Section 50(1) of PMLA requires the person summoned to be examined on oath, produce records as demanded and record evidence on affidavits.
Meanwhile, the ED on Tuesday conducted searches at AAP legislator from Okhla Amanatullah Khan’s premises in an alleged Waqf Board recruitment scam. This was the second time that the agency searched his premises.
[ad_2]
Source link
