CHENNAI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that the state government is trying to “obstruct lawful investigation into serious allegations of money laundering”, initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), involving Tasmac officials.
This was submitted by the central agency in the Madras High Court in its counter-affidavit filed against the petitions of Tamil Nadu government and Tasmac, challenging the search and seizures by the ED at the latter’s premises.
A division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar ordered notice to the respondents, including the Union government and the ED, and adjourned the case for the final hearing on April 8 and 9. It directed the respective counsels to complete their pleadings and serving of counter-affidavit and rejoinders by April 7.
Advocate General (AG) PS Raman told the court that Tasmac was the complainant in the predicate offence but the ED had chosen to search the complainant’s premises, that too extending to midnight by detaining the officers and employees.
The bench countered the AG with a poser, “Didn’t you (state agencies) conduct searches at midnight?”
The AG replied, “Certainly not at midnight.”
The ED, in its counter-affidavit, stated that it has proceeded on the basis of the multiple FIRs registered by the DVAC over the ‘high level corruption indulged in by officers in the rank of district managers and senior regional managers’.
Referring to the state and the Tasmac’s allegation that search warrant copy was not served, the central agency said there is no statutory or other obligation to provide a copy of the search warrant.
The ED said, “The allegations of illegal detention, harassment, procedural violations and unauthorised seizures are factually incorrect, misleading and an attempt to obstruct a lawful investigation into serious allegations of money laundering.”
Stating that the search was conducted by exercising the statutory powers under the PMLA, the ED said that duration of the search cannot render the search illegal and there is no upper limit for duration of the search in the law.
Denying violation of the human rights of the officers, the agency said, “Fundamental rights of individuals cannot be vicariously sought to be enforced by a company when such individuals have not come forward with any complaints. The object of the writ petition appears to be motivated to create hurdles in a legitimate investigation initiated under the PMLA.”
It said all the employees were given adequate rest and no staff, particularly women, were forced to stay.
“The officers of ED took meticulous efforts for the safety and well-being of the employees of Tasmac (during the search). All woman employees were given the option to leave the premises before nightfall,” it stated.
The ED also stated that the “reasons to believe” documentation is an internal, confidential investigative record that cannot be disclosed at this stage of investigation as it would prejudice the ongoing probe and potentially alert the other suspects.”