KOCHI: The Enforcement Directorate’s decision to forward its findings in the CMRL-Exalogic case to Kerala police for registration of a corruption case has opened a new legal phase in the investigation into former chief minister and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, son-in-law and MLA P A Mohamed Riyas and others.
The ED invoked Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to share its findings and supporting material with state authorities. The state police chief has received the report, which will now be examined before a decision on further action.
“It is only the ED’s opinion based on its investigation, not a directive to register an FIR. As per law, the ED cannot direct a state to register an FIR. State agencies will have to independently assess the ED’s findings and decide whether they disclose a cognisable offence warranting registration of an FIR,” High Court advocate K S Arun Kumar said.
According to the ED, CMRL paid rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions, the IT firm linked to Veena, allegedly without corresponding services being rendered. The agency further alleged that Rs 3.28 crore was paid as illegal gratification to Pinarayi through Veena and that Riyas played a role in routing of money.
The central agency also alleged that material recovered during the probe point to hawala-linked transactions, including the transfer of 3.49 lakh UAE dirhams (approx Rs 90 lakh). Pinarayi has denied the allegations and rejected claims of hawala dealings involving his family.
Supreme Court advocate Kaleeswaram Raj said Section 66(2) requires that ED share information indicating the commission of another offence with the concerned authority for necessary action.
“Under Section 66(2), ED must share information indicating the commission of another offence, such as one under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), with the concerned agency for necessary action. The government cannot simply ignore the communication. Any prosecution would, however, have to comply with applicable legal requirements, including sanction wherever necessary,” Kaleeswaram said.
Retired Kerala HC judge B Kemal Pasha said the material warrants consideration under PCA. “There is sufficient material to consider invoking Section 13 of PCA. Vigilance can register a case and investigate. It would be in the best interest of the government to act on the ED report,” he said.
A retired ED official said registration of the predicate offence would strengthen the agency’s PMLA proceedings. “Registration of the case would give a stronger legal basis to the PMLA proceedings. Its absence would not automatically end the ED probe, but the accused could use it to challenge the proceedings. Ultimately, the strength of the ED case will depend on the evidence collected,” the official said.
What happens next?
Examination by state: The competent agency will assess the ED report and supporting material before taking a decision.
If an offence is disclosed, the state agency can register a case and investigate, while the ED continues its PMLA proceedings.
If no FIR is filed, the ED probe does not automatically end, but the accused can challenge its legal foundation.
Evidence: An ED report or FIR does not establish guilt; the allegations must ultimately be proved through admissible evidence.