Tasmac scam: Madras HC questions ED's powers to seal premises of bizmen
CHENNAI: Questioning the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to seal the premises of film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in connection with the alleged Tasmac scam, the Madras High Court has granted a day's time to the agency to produce the materials, based on which it has proceeded against them, in the court.
A division bench of Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan pilloried the central agency over the legality to seal the premises owned by the two persons only because they were not available when it went for a search. The questions were raised while hearing the petitions filed by Ravindran challenging the ED's action.
'Your people often say the money laundering act (PMLA) is evolving but we find the authorities are evolving by expanding the scope (of powers),' the bench commented.
The ED's counsel explained that premises were not sealed but notices were pasted to the effect that the premises 'shall not be opened', besides asking them to contact the agency. The counsel said that the agency wanted to search the premises and since no one was available, they had to paste the notices.
Stating that the agency has not even treated them as accused in the money laundering proceedings, the counsel said it has to search the premises based on credible information and independent materials. He also filed a sealed cover to the court.The bench wondered why should the petitioners cooperate with the agency when they are not an accused in the laundering proceedings?
The bench likened the action of the ED to a particular method used by the police, which, the bench said, would arrest the brother of an accused if the latter is not available.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
ED raids Himachal Assistant Drug Controller, linked persons in PMLA probe
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Sunday (June 22, 2025) conducted searches against a Himachal Pradesh-based Assistant Drug Controller (ADC), his family members and some others as part of a money laundering investigation linked to charges of bribery and 'political patronage', official sources said. The action has been taken against Nishant Sareen, currently posted as ADC Dharamshala, his father-in-law Ramesh Kumar Gupta and an alleged associate Komal Khanna apart from some others, they said. Five residential and commercial premises in Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab were searched. The probe relates to 'misuse' of official position by the officer when he was earlier posted as ADC in Baddi (Solan district) as well as during his current tenure, ED sources said. The Central agency, according to the sources, is also investigating the alleged generation of proceeds of crime in this case apart from charges of 'political patronage and complaints of extortion and bribe' against Mr. Sareen. The officer or his legal representatives could not be contacted immediately for a comment on the charges made by the ED. The Office of the Drug Controller is part of the Directorate of Health Safety and Regulation of the H.P. Government. The money laundering case filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) stems from an August, 2019 FIR registered by the State Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (SV&ACB) of Himachal Pradesh Police against Sareen while he was posted as ADC in Baddi. The SV&ACB arrested him in September, 2019 and later charge-sheeted him along with Mr. Khanna. Mr. Sareen was released on bail in October that year and was posted as ADC, Dharamshala in 2024, the sources said. Mr. Sareen, during the Himachal Police investigation, faced charges of receiving bribe from pharmaceutical companies based in Baddi, a pharma hub in the State.
Hindustan Times
17 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
ED withdraws summons to senior advocate amid row
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency's move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT photo) Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as 'a deeply disquieting development,' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an 'impermissible transgression' into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar as 'unwarranted' and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach. Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED's actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- Indian Express
PMLA probe complete, asked banks to unfreeze accounts of bootlegger's brother: Gujarat Police tells HC
Nearly three years after the State Monitoring Cell (SMC) of the Gujarat police directed two banks to freeze accounts of a Vadodara-based businessman to investigate a proposed case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, against his brother, a wanted alleged bootlegger, the cell informed the Gujarat High Court that it has requested the banks to 'unfreeze' the accounts as the investigation was complete. On Thursday, Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat HC disposed of the petition filed by Rajesh Udhwani, a resident of Vadodara's Warasiya area and the brother of Vijay Udhwani, who had moved a Special Criminal Application through his advocate Rahul Sharma against the state of Gujarat, Director General and Inspector General of Police, SMC, and Vadodara city branches of two banks — Bank of Baroda and HDFC Bank – after his accounts were frozen in July 2022 at the directions of the SMC. On Thursday, as the petition came up for hearing, the government public prosecutor informed the court that the SMC, had, through a communication to the banks in April, directed that the two accounts held by Rajesh Udhwani be 'unfreezed' as the 'investigation was done'. The court, in an oral order, disposed of the petition and said, 'In view of the communication dated 29.04.2025 prepared by the Police Sub-Inspector, State Monitoring Cell, Gujarat State, the application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.' In his petition before the HC, the petitioner stated that he runs a liquor business in Rajasthan and a retail cloth store in Vadodara city. He challenged the seizure of his two bank accounts with the HDFC and the Bank of Baroda, which was effected by both banks in July 2022, on the directions of the SMC. The petition stated that Rajesh Udhwani 'has no criminal antecedent and is not involved in any criminal activity'. The petitioner had stated that he 'has reasons to believe that his bank accounts were seized because several offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, have been registered against his brother.' Rajesh Udhawani's advocate Rahul Sharma told The Indian Express, 'The petition contended that seizure of bank accounts of any person, without there being any connection with any crime, is not permissible under law. There is also no reason for the police to suspect the commission of any crime. Therefore, the prayer was that the order of the SMC to seize the accounts of the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to operate his bank account without any hindrance… The SMC had frozen the accounts without following the process of law.' In a letter sent to the manager of the banks in April, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, SMC, directed that the accounts be 'unfreezed'. The letter, which is now part of the annexures presented before the HC by the petitioner, and signed by Police Sub-inspector of SMC, said, 'An offence has been registered (in 2021)… for the purpose of PMLA (money laundering) proposal of the accused and to further investigate the case, the Investigating Officer JH Dahiya, Police Inspector SMC Gandhinagar, with cited reference letter, has examined account details of the accounts connected and familiar with the main accused… and after that the IO had requested your bank to freeze and mark this account as 'No Debit' till further instructions from his office… Investigation of the account has been done… so you are requested to unfreeze the account.' The petitioner's brother, Vijay Udhwani alias Viju Sindhi, is an alleged bootlegger who has multiple cases against him across the state as well as a red corner notice. Vijay has been on the run since his name cropped up in the murder of gangster Mukesh Harjani in Vadodara in 2016. In February, the SMC had booked Vijay under the GUCTOC Act along with his gang members in hundreds of collective cases. Vijay has challenged the FIR in the Gujarat HC.
