Monthly payoff case: ED move imminent against Veena Vijayan and CMRL officials as High Court greenlights probe

KOCHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is expected to imminently interrogate Veena Vijayan, daughter of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with top officials of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL). This development follows the decision of a Kerala High Court Division Bench to permit the ongoing investigation into the controversial monthly pay-off case. With CMRL only able to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal on Monday, anti-money laundering agency sources suggest that significant and unexpected investigative steps could unfold over the weekend.

ED Director Rahul Navin has arrived in Kochi to personally review the progress of the high-profile case. Reports indicate that a comprehensive roadmap for expedited proceedings has been finalised under his direct supervision. The agency has accelerated its scrutiny of electronic evidence and documents seized during recent raids. Furthermore, formal procedures have commenced for the confiscation of frozen assets valued at ₹18.36 crore.

During a high-level briefing, the Director instructed the prosecution wing to closely monitor all ongoing legal matters involving the ED across various courts. This includes the case regarding the physical assault on ED personnel in Thiruvananthapuram. The meeting, convened at the agency's Kadavanthra office, saw the participation of Chennai Zonal Office Special Director Prashant Kumar, Chennai Additional Director Abhyuday A. Anand—who holds charge of the Kochi office—and senior legal officers from the Delhi headquarters.

High Court upholds ED's independent investigative powers

Dismissing an appeal filed by CMRL against a single-judge bench's order, a Division Bench comprising Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar ruled that a prior FIR or a formal complaint from another investigative agency is not a prerequisite for the ED to initiate civil proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The court clarified that the requirement to establish a scheduled offence applies strictly to the criminal prosecution stage. Such stipulations do not govern civil actions, including the attachment of property under Section 5 of the PMLA. The bench further noted that individuals do not automatically become accused parties merely by being served an investigative summons.

Addressing the legal standing of the agency's internal documentation, the bench observed that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) serves purely as an internal administrative record. Unlike a police First Information Report (FIR), an ECIR does not possess independent statutory finality. Consequently, the court rejected CMRL's plea to quash the ECIR, deeming the demand legally unsustainable.