Sonia Gandhi says National Herald case political, no transfer of money or property of AJL

NEW DELHI: Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has raised the issue of the jurisdiction of court to take cognizance of prosecution complaint based on a private complaint filed BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in the National Herald case and said there was no transfer of money or property of Associated Journal Limited (AJL) by Young Indian.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Congress leader, said Young Indian took over the debt of AJL. He said AJL’s assets are still with it and there is no transfer. He said it is an alleged money laundering case “where neither money nor property has been transferred” and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is requesting the court to take cognizance against respondents.

He asked if AJL debt had been taken over by industrial houses such as Tatas or Birlas, would they be accused of money laundering? Singhvi said there is no complaint filed by an authorised person to investigate the case, and Subramaniam Swamy is not an authorised person in the matter.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne listed the matter for hearing the arguments of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi after hearing the submissions of Singhvi on behalf of Sonia Gandhi.

Singhvi said there was a dire need for funds for AJL, and Congress revived it by giving a loan. He stated that there is no case of money laundering, as no money or property has been moved. He argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance as there was no complaint by an authorised person. He said AJL has had properties across India for decades, and ownership of any property has not been moved.

The Senior Advocate said AJL’s debt was taken over by the Young Indian, which is a not-for-profit company. He said no Congress leader gets any money or property, and yet money laundering allegations have been levelled. He asked if ownership of property is with AJL, how it is a money laundering?.

At the outset, it was submitted that the complaint filed by the ED is not maintainable as there is no FIR. The foundation for investigation ought to come from a person authorised to investigate as per law, the Senior Advocate submitted. There is no actual complaint, there is no investigation by an authorised person, he added.

He said ED is not here to selectively pick up private complaints that haven’t been probed. The safeguards will be gone if such a thing keeps happening, he added. It was also argued that there is an 11-year gap between the Young Indian decision and the ED probe, and there is an eight-year gap in the complaint of Swamy and the ED case.

Singhvi said when shares are transferred to Young Indian (YI), the ownership of the assets still remains with the AJL. “All that happened when YI got 99% share of AJL. How is this money laundering?” he asked.

Singhvi submitted there is no FIR. After this only, can the ED jurisdiction come into the picture. He said it is a political case. “Imagine there’s no FIR or a complaint by an agency…We can’t have such speculations and assumptions,” he said. He said ED has never done this in 23 years — picking up a private complaint years later and requesting the court to take cognisance of it. (ANI)