KOCHI: The government's arguments that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be treated as an investigative agency and that a preliminary inquiry was necessary to verify the facts in its report failed to convince the High Court. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) stipulates that if evidence of a violation of law emerges during an investigation, the findings must be referred to the appropriate agency for further action. Justice A. Badharudeen stated that when the ED submits such a report under Section 66(2), there is an obligation to register a case.
Advocate General Jaju Babu had pointed out that the Vigilance Court dismissed petitions filed by MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan and others, a decision later upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Those rulings were based on the findings that entries in CMRL's diary had no evidentiary value and that supporting documents had not been produced.
However, the court observed that the evidence submitted by the ED was obtained after the disposal of the initial case, and therefore, even the previous Supreme Court verdict does not stand in the way of a Vigilance investigation.
(According to the ED report)
1. Pinarayi Vijayan: Received Rs 3.28 crore in bribes through his daughter, Veena.
2. Mohammed Riyas: Helped transfer the bribe money to Dubai through Veena and her associates.
3. Veena: Helped collect and transfer bribe money on behalf of Pinarayi Vijayan and Riyas.
4. Exalogic Solutions: The company was used for fictitious financial transactions.
5. Sasidharan Kartha: Paid the bribe.
6. P. Suresh Kumar: Assisted in paying the bribe.
7. Empower India Capital Investments: The firm was used to transfer the bribe money.
8. Shaijal
9. P. Nikhil
10. Waris alias Hassan Warish
11. V. P. Faizal
12. M. Nandulal: The five individuals were involved in helping Veena and Riyas collect and transfer the bribe money.
13. Others yet to be identified: Assisted in the conspiracy and transfer of money.