CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac), which has filed petitions in the Madras High Court challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) recent raids on its premises over alleged money laundering, has said the means adopted by the central agency to achieve ends should be “fair and transparent.”
Senior counsel Vikram Chaudhary, appearing for Tasmac, made the submission before a division bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and K Rajasekar during the second day of arguments on the matter on Wednesday.
Citing certain judgments of the Supreme Court on money laundering proceedings, he said, “Let means adopted to achieve the ends be fair, above board and transparent.”
He stressed the need for the ED to strictly adhere to the procedures laid down in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while initiating action, including search and seizures.
“The court has to see whether the safeguards provided in the Act are to be adhered to in spirit and substance,” he said, adding that the court should also see whether the action of the ED is based on material evidence or is it holding a ‘roving enquiry’.
Referring to the central agency’s raids on Tasmac premises lasting till midnight, Chaudhary said the ED cannot proceed like the police, stating that someone walked into and lodged a complaint.“You must have material evidence to proceed with the money laundering probe. You can’t say you will hold the search first and then find the material evidence,” he said.
The counsel further said action for money laundering can be initiated only if there is a scheduled offence where the property is derived out of proceeds of crime generated through predicate offence.
Referring to ED’s contention that the enforcement case information report is an internal document and confidential, and so it cannot be issued to Tasmac before holding the raids, Chaudhary noted that the agency had shared the details of the search and seizures to the press.
Touching on detention of officers until late into the night during the three-day search, the counsel urged the court to decide what the ED’s right to investigate is and the officers’ right to freedom. The bench adjourned the case to April 15.
