Latest news with #TASMAC
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
Madras High Court Stays Probe Agency ED Action Against Producer Vikram Ravindran, Associate
Chennai: In a major setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the high-profile TASMAC money laundering probe, the Madras High Court has stayed proceedings against Tamil film producer Vikram Ravindran and his associate, ruling that the ED's search and seizure operation was without authority and jurisdiction. The court also directed the ED to return all properties seized during the raid including electronic devices, with a caveat that the petitioners must not tamper with or alienate the contents of the returned items. Delivering a scathing verdict, the court noted that the ED failed to produce any incriminating material that would justify initiating proceedings against the petitioners. Despite being given two opportunities to submit evidence justifying the search, the agency could not furnish any document that suggested Mr Ravindran and his friend were involved in money laundering linked to the Rs 1,000 crore TASMAC scam. "The material presented in a sealed cover does not contain any semblance of information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering," the court said. It said no incriminating documents were in the ED's possession when the search was first authorised. The petitioners said they had no role in TASMAC operations and were not named in any of the 41 first information reports filed by the state's directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption. The ED earlier claimed to possess incriminating documents and alleged the duo's involvement. Alleging a Rs 1,000 crore scam in TASMAC, the government arm that sells liquor, the ED accused distilleries and bottle manufacturing firms of colluding in corrupt practices amounting to over Rs 1,000 crore. In a significant development during the hearing, the ED said it had no authority to seal the petitioners' properties and agreed to de-seal the premises. This comes at a time when the Supreme Court has already stayed the ED probe into the TASMAC case, expressing concern over the agency's aggressive approach. The Supreme Court questioned the very basis of criminal action against a state-run corporation, particularly when FIRs were registered against individuals and not the corporation itself. It had also warned that the ED was "crossing all limits" and "breaching the federal structure". The ruling DMK has repeatedly alleged that central agencies like the ED are being misused by the BJP-led Union government to target Opposition-ruled states and political rivals. The BJP has denied all such charges. Opposition parties have highlighted the ED's alleged coercive role in extracting large political donations under the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC stays ED proceedings against film producer, bizman
Chennai, The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings, pursuant to the Enforcement Directorate's authorisation to conduct search and seizure, against film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in the alleged ₹1,000 crore TASMAC money laundering case. A division bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay on the petitions filed by Baskaran and Vikram, challenging the action of the ED. Senior counsels Vijay Narayanan and Abudukumar submitted that the petitioners have no involvement with the TASMAC operations at all and in the alleged 41 FIRs lodged by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the scheduled offences, no independent allegation or predicate offence has been registered against the petitioners and therefore questioned the validity of the invocation of Section 17 of the PMLA. In its order, the bench said since the petitioners had totally denied any involvement relating to the scheduled offences, it had called upon the Special Public Prosecutor to produce before it the materials forming the basis of information in their possession, which has led them to believe that the petitioners had committed an act, which constitutes money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime, records or property, in a sealed cover, through an interim order dated June 13, 2025. On June 17, the SPP produced a sealed cover along with an undated and unsigned brief explanation note along with supporting materials, claiming it to be the information they possess about the petitioners, which led them to initiate the search operations, the bench added. The bench said the brief explanation note, however, also does not relate to the information or materials which the Directorate claims to have in possession in their earlier notes on "reason to believe" produced on June 17. Neither does this brief explanation note disclose any information in the possession of the Directorate, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operations in the petitioners premises, the bench added. The bench said when it indicated to Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that whatever the information/materials they had produced before it in the sealed cover had no nexus to their original claims of being in possession of incriminating information, he submitted that the 41 FIRs, relating to the scheduled offences registered against the TASMAC officials, were the information in their possession, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operation. "When we expressed to the Additional Solicitor General that we do not approve his claim in this regard, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that they had already directed the respondent to de-seal the petitioner's premises . His statement is hereby recorded. The Additional Solicitor General sought four weeks time to file a counter affidavit before us," the bench added. The bench said, "On a prima facie view, we find that the Authorisation No.96/2025, dated May 15,2025 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's premises by the respondent, is wholly without authority or jurisdiction, since no incriminating information or material was in their possession on May 15, 2025 when the respondent had authorised for search and seizure operations and on May 16, 2025 when the respondent had sealed the petitioner's premises". The bench said it consciously refrained from describing the alleged material or information claimed to be in the possession of the ED for obvious reasons. However, it would suffice to state that the so-called information produced by the Directorate before it has absolutely no semblance of an information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering. "In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the respondent's Authorization No.96/2025 dated May, 15,.2025, pending disposal of this Writ Petition", the bench added. The bench said there shall be a further interim order to the ED to return all the seized properties of the petitioners, pursuant to the search and seizure operations conducted on May 16, pending final disposal of this Writ Petition. The petitioners shall not tamper or alienate the digital devices that has been returned to him/to be returned to him, pending final disposal of this writ petition. The bench posted to July 16, for further hearing of the case.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
TASMAC money laundering case: Madras High Court stays further ED proceedings against film producer Akash Baskaran, businessman friend Vikram Ravindran
The Madras High Court, on Friday (June 20, 2025) stayed all further proceedings to be taken by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against film producer Akash Baskaran and his friend Vikram Ravindran in connection with the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) money laundering probe. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Laksminarayanan granted the interim stay after being prima facie satisfied that an authorisation issued by a Joint Director of ED on May 15 and the consequential search and seizure operations at their residences and office was 'wholly without authority or jurisdiction.' The judges went through the ED records produced before the court in a sealed cover and found no incriminating information or material, connecting the two writ petitioners with the TASMAC money laundering case, was available with them when the authorisation for search and seizure was issued by the Joint Director on May 15, 2025. 'It would be suffice to state that the so called information produced by the Directorate before us had absolutely no semblance of information which may have led them to believe that the petitioners may be involved in the offence of money laundering. In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay,' the Bench added. The judges also directed ED to return to the petitioners all materials including a laptop, a hard drive, three external hard disks, three iPhones, one more mobile phone and the lease rental deeds with respect to their office at Semmenchery and Mr. Ravindran's residence at Poes Garden which were seized from Mr. Baskaran's residence on May 16. The Bench made it clear the petitioners must not tamper with or alienate any of those seized materials until further orders from the court and directed the High Court Registry too to keep a copy of the records produced by the ED, in a sealed cover, in safe custody so that they could be used during final hearing of the writ petitions. Though Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju urged the Division Bench to keep their interim stay order in abeyance for a period of three weeks to enable the ED to file an appeal before the Supreme Court if they chose to do so, the judges refused to accept the request and said, their order copy would be issued on Friday itself.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Parasakthi producer Aakash Baskaran wins relief in TASMAC case: High Court raps ED for overreach
'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran's involvement in the TASMAC corruption case shocked Kollywood fans. In the recent development, the Madras High Court strongly questioned the Enforcement Directorate 's (ED) authority in sealing properties during its investigation into the TASMAC corruption case. The court noted that the ED only has the power to operate the search and recovery under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), but the ceiling complex requires a specific legal authority. It came in response to the petitions filed by 'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran and industrialist Vikram Ravindran, who challenged the ED's action to seal their homes and offices. The court asked the ED to clarify under which provisions it exercised such powers and ordered the submission of related documents. ED sought time and withdrew the sealing order before court When the matter resumed on June 18, ED argued that they had sufficient reasons to act based on suspicious illegal money transactions. According to One India, their lawyers pointed to 41 FIRs registered in connection with the TASMAC probe and insisted that even a strong suspicion was enough to warrant an investigation. However, the judges were unconvinced, asking whether the names of the petitioners appeared in any of those FIRs. They emphasized that suspicion alone cannot justify sealing properties and demanded clarity on the legal grounds for such action. Judges criticize ED's justification and seek clear evidence. Responding to the ED's submission, the court said, "On what basis do you believe that the petitioners are involved?" The bench reiterated that while the ED has the power to investigate, sealing a base during a discovery is not within their standard authority until strong evidence and court approval are supported. This raised important concerns over the interpretation of the ED's investigative powers. Final verdict: No authority to seal without judicial order While ending the session, the court made it clear that Ed had abolished its jurisdiction. The judges unevenly stated that sealing any property during an investigation cannot be done only on doubt. He said that such acts are not unauthorized until the court is allowed. Subsequently, the ED agreed to withdraw its earlier sealing order, giving a temporary resolution to the dispute.
The Hindu
13-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Film producer Akash Baskaran moves Madras High Court to declare ED's search and seizure operation illegal
Film producer Akash Baskaran and his friend Vikram Ravindran, serving as a director at Akash Baskaran Creative Studios Private Limited, have approached the Madras High Court complaining about the action initiated against them by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) reportedly in connection with the TASMAC money laundering investigation. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan on Friday granted time till June 17 for ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh to explain the link between the petitioners and the TASMAC case and whether the agency had the authority to seal a premises if it was found to be locked when the sleuths go for a search operation. According to a Panchanama (seizure memo) prepared by the ED, it had conducted a search and seizure operation at the Alwarpet residence of Mr. Baskaran on May 16, 2025. It was on the same day when the TASMAC headquarters in Chennai was also subjected to a search and seizure operation. The officers found that only his driver Durairaj Selvaraj was at home. 'Thus, Shri Durairaj Selvaraj was requested to contact Shri Akash Baskaran to arrive at the premises. Shri Durairaj Selvaraj called Shri Baskaran at 6:15 a.m. on his phone number and requested him to arrive at the premises. However, Shri Baskaran did not arrive and instead he switches his phone off,' the memo read and stated the search was carried out in the presence of the driver. During the search, the ED officials found a Registration Certificate (RC) of a Toyota Hycross Hybrid car registered in the name of Mr. Vikram's father B. Ravindran. The RC identified the vehicle owner to be residing at an apartment in Semmenchery and hence a team of ED officials rushed to the spot immediately but could not search that premises since it was locked. Thereafter, the ED seized three iPhones, one more mobile phone, a laptop, two external hard disks, one hard drive, the lease agreements for the Alwarpet flat as well as another flat in Poes Garden, Chennai. Claiming he had absolutely nothing to do with the TASMAC money laundering case, Mr. Baskaran urged the court to declare the search operation at his premises as illegal and order return of seized properties. On his part, Mr. Ravindran filed two writ petitions complaining that his office at Semmenchery and residence at Poes Garden were sealed by the ED since the premises were locked when the officials went there for the search operation. Claiming that the ED officials have no authority to seal a premises at will, he sought an order declaring the sealing of the premises as illegal and a consequent direction to de-seal the premises.
