BENGALURU: The ED has claimed that a screenshot from the mobile phone of accused No. 8, Vijay Kumar Gowda, the personal assistant of former minister B. Nagendra, and several conversations clearly indicate that funds from the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation were utilized for Lok Sabha election campaigning in Ballari.
Referring to Gowda’s statement, the ED, in its objection to Nagendra's bail application, contended that Nagendra had played a central role in orchestrating fraudulent activities by pressuring officials to transfer funds.
The proceeds of the crime were allegedly used by him for personal and electoral expenditures, including cash management during the election. Gowda was involved in handling these funds, and it was further claimed that Rs 61 crore was taken by Edara Rudraiah (A-25) on the instructions of Nekkunti Nagaraj (A-6) to be handed over to Gowda.
The ED also stated that the Tribal Welfare Department, which was headed by Nagendra, bypassed procedural checks to disburse funds quickly before the model code of conduct came into force. The department failed to monitor mid-year utilization for disbursing the funds, despite clear instructions that they may remain unused.
Additionally, it was alleged that Nagendra attempted to destroy evidence by disposing of his three iPhones. Refuting the ED’s allegations, the senior counsel representing Nagendra argued that any statement recorded during a person's custody loses its sanctity and that there is no substantial material collected to indicate that Nagendra utilized the proceeds of the crime, except for a vague statement from Gowda.
In granting bail, Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat noted that a person accused in a PMLA case need not be implicated in a predicate offense. Although Nagendra, as accused No. 1, is not charged in any predicate offense, the prosecution contends that he was the kingpin and mastermind of the crime.
The judge emphasized that the prosecution only needs to establish that he is a recipient of the proceeds of crime. It is also pertinent to note that one of the complainants has sought a CBI investigation, which is pending adjudication. Unfortunately, the judge observed that despite the ED's claims of uncovering extensive documentation, there is no material evidence available in the predicate offense to indicate that the proceeds of crime were being passed on.