
This kinds the crux of the chargesheet filed by the ED within the Nationwide Herald cash laundering case, which has additionally named Congress leaders Sam Pitroda and Suman Dubey as accused.
The present market worth of the property is now Rs 5,000 crore, and the ED has recognized the “proceeds of crime” at Rs 988 crore, sources instructed PTI. The AJL was based by India’s first prime minister, Jawarharlal Nehru.
Within the ED chargesheet, Sonia has been named accused no 1, and Rahul as accused no 2. A particular courtroom will determine on taking cognisance of the chargesheet on April 25.
The ED has sought punishment for Sonia, Rahul and different accused below Part 4 of the PMLA, the place jail time period can prolong as much as seven years.
The case is predicated on an order of a trial courtroom that allowed the Revenue Tax division to analyze the affairs of the Nationwide Herald and conduct a tax evaluation of the Gandhis. The trial courtroom order got here on a petition filed by former minister Subramanian Swamy in 2013.
WHAT ED CHARGESHEET SAYS
The ED chargesheet states that the “principal officers” of AJL, Younger Indian, and “key” Congress workplace bearers entered right into a “felony conspiracy” to amass property price Rs 2,000 crore of AJL, a public firm.
This they did by transferring 99% shares in favour of Younger Indian, a personal firm, for Rs 50 lakh, the ED has alleged. Whereas Sonia and Rahul personal a 76% stake in Younger Indian, 24% belonged to the late Motilal Vohra and the late Oscar Fernandes.
As per the chargesheet, the leaders “transformed” the excellent mortgage of Rs 90.21 crore given by Congress to AJL into Rs 9.02 crore fairness shares. All these shares had been then transferred to Younger Indian for a “paltry” Rs 50 lakh, as per the ED.
Thus, by way of this switch, Sonia and Rahul turned the “useful” homeowners of properties of AJL price 1000’s of crores.
The ED probe additional discovered that whereas Younger Indian was listed as a “not-for-profit” firm below Part 25 of the Firms Act, there was “no such charitable exercise” within the firm.