New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday April 25 filed its chargesheet in the 2G case against DMK chief M Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal and daughter Kanimozhi besides former telecom minister A Raja under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
On this, the ED has taken a different track than CBI that had exonerated Ammal in the case and made her a prosecution witness. In the 2G trial court, Ammal’s lawyers had argued that she was unaware of the affairs of Kaliagnar TV, that allegedly received questionable funds.
ED has been investigating the transfer of over Rs 200 crore to DMK-promoted Kalaignar TV by Swan Telecom, allegedly as a quid pro quo for the firm bagging 2G spectrum at throwaway price when DMK leader A Raja was telecom minister. TOI had reported (on February 5, 2014) about ED being in the final stages of filing a chargesheet in the case under PMLA.
The development is a setback to Karunanidhi, particularly as it comes at a time when election reports from Tamil Nadu indicate a small upturn in the party’s political fortunes.
ED did not take a generous view of Ammal’s age and an officer said, “Unlike CBI, our investigations have revealed that Ammal is as much to blame for the scam as Kanimozhi. You can’t leave out a person who has 60% stake in the company and is aware of its day-to-day affairs and prosecute the one who has 20% stake.”
The 143-page ED chargesheet was filed before special CBI judge O P Saini by special public prosecutor Naveen Kumar Matta in the presence of investigating officer Rajeshwar Singh and ED joint director Himanshu Lal.
Accusing eight more, including Raja and Kalaignar TV director P Amritham, of being involved in the scam, the chargesheet said Ammal was promoter shareholder of the channel with 60% stake and was part of all important decisions taken by the company.
Amritham was a key witness in the CBI case. He had given a statement to CBI that Kanimozhi was the founder director of the channel and took keen interest in its day-to-day affairs. He, however, denied making such a statement in court. Interestingly, the ED chargesheet now cites his statement (given to ED under Section 50 of PMLA) in which he has claimed Ammal was aware and had participated in important decisions taken by the company.
