The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday told a Delhi court that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, both accused in the National Herald case, have enjoyed Rs 142 crore in proceeds of crime.
In the National Herald money laundering case, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the federal agency, said that the accused were "enjoying the proceeds of crime" until the Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached properties worth Rs 751.9 crore linked to the National Herald in November 2023.
The ED further claimed that the Gandhis not only committed money laundering when they acquired the proceeds of crime but also by continuing to hold the proceeds.
The ED pointed out that there is a prima facie case of money laundering that has been established against the Gandhis, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey and others in connection with the National Herald.
Meanwhile, the judge ordered the federal agency to supply a copy to the complainant, Subramanian Swamy. The ED filed its chargesheet recently after it started its investigation in 2021.
WHAT IS NATIONAL HERALD CASE?
The first complaint was filed in 2012. However, the ED began probing the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in 2014. This was after a trial court took notice of an Income Tax probe into the irregularities based on a private criminal complaint filed by Swamy back in 2012.In 2010, there were 1,057 shareholders in Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published National Herald. According to Swamy's complaint, the Gandhis had acquired AJL through Young Indian Limited by means of cheating, criminal misappropriation, and breach of trust.
In 2008, AJL, burdened by heavy debt, stopped the publication of the National Herald, citing financial constraints. Two years later, AJL was formed with Sonia and Rahul Gandhi holding 38 per cent of shares each, jointly amounting 78 per cent.
As AJL owed Rs 90.25 crore to the National Congress, the party transferred the loan to YIL for Rs 50 lakh. With the transfer, control of AJL was subsequently transferred to YIL, which, now, owned 99 per cent of AJL.
Additionally, neither was the transfer done under the watch of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) nor any other regulatory body, which raised eyebrows.
