New Delhi [India], May 14 : The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday opposed the plea filed by businessman Robert Vadra before the Delhi High Court challenging the summons issued to him in the Shikohpur land deal-linked money laundering case.
The matter was heard by Justice Manoj Jain, who posted the case for further detail hearing on May 18.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Vadra, argued that the alleged predicate offences relate to the period between 2008 and 2012, whereas several of those offences were added to the schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act only later.
Singhvi submitted that the offences alleged against Vadra in the predicate case include conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption-related offences arising out of land transactions between 2008 and 2012. He argued that some of these offences became part of the PMLA schedule only in 2013 and 2018 and therefore, there was a lack of jurisdiction to prosecute Vadra under the money laundering law.
Singhvi argued that the issue raised by Vadra was a "jurisdictional threshold objection" and questioned whether offences could be retrospectively brought within the ambit of the PMLA.
He further argued that if such an interpretation were accepted generally, even very old transactions could be treated as continuing money laundering offences decades later.
The bench observed that the trial court had only passed an initial order taking cognisance and that all these issues could also be raised before the trial court during the proceedings. The Court also asked Singhvi whether the point relating to retrospectivity had been raised before the trial court.
Appearing for the ED, Advocate Zoheb Hossain strongly opposed the petition and argued that it was based on "false submissions" and deserved dismissal. Hossain submitted that the offences referred to by Vadra's side were already part of the law and argued that there were repeated false statements in the petition regarding the legal position.
He further submitted that the offence relating to forgery was already included in the schedule from the original inception and argued that the plea was based on an incorrect reading of the law.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that it would hear the matter further on Monday.
The High Court has not stayed the summons issued to Vadra. He is required to appear before the Rouse Avenue Court on May 16 in compliance with the summons issued against him.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor