KOCHI: Failure to register an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family in connection with the CMRL payoff case would amount to helping them and attract the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against the officer concerned, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had told the state police chief in its letter last month.
“The act of not registering an FIR when actionable evidence is provided would amount to knowingly assisting the accused in generation of proceeds of crime (bribe money) which would attract the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA,” said the September 7 letter, a copy of which is with TNIE.
It said Section 3 is stringent and covers anyone who knowingly assists the accused. “Any person, including a government officer, who knowingly assists the accused in the generation, concealment or possession of bribe money would be guilty of money laundering,” said the letter. It also cited Supreme Court judgments that empowered the ED to take “appropriate remedy” in case the FIR was not registered.
The ED had requested the state police to register an FIR for corruption against Pinarayi, his daughter Veena T, who owned the now-defunct Exalogic Solutions, and her husband and former minister P A Mohamed Riyas under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and other relevant laws.
ED: Police duty bound to register FIRs immediately
In its letter, the ED said siphoning of funds is nothing but cheating the public shareholders of CMRL and the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (which holds a 13% stake in CMRL).
Explaining the liability of officers in possession of evidence, the letter said as per law and three Supreme Court judgments, police officers are duty bound to register FIRs immediately on receipt of information of a cognisable offence.
It said not doing so would directly benefit offenders and help them receive the proceeds of crime, that is the bribe amount, and also give them time and opportunity to destroy evidence.
The SC judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India dated February 27, 2022, had said, “It is possible that in a given case after the discovery of huge volume of undisclosed property, the authorised officer may be advised to send information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA Act 2002 for registration of a scheduled offence contemporaneously, including for further investigation in a pending case, if any.
On receipt of such information, the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register the case by way of FIR if it is a cognisable offence or as a non-cognisable offence...”Citing this, the ED letter said the information it provided relates to corruption, cheating and money laundering by public servants, a cognisable offence.
It said the SC had also held that where FIR is not registered, appropriate remedy to ensure the culprits do not go unpunished and proceeds of crime are secured and dealt with as per the dispensation provided in PMLA, may be taken by ED.
