CitysMumbai Region

Raut’s bail is opposed by ED in money laundering case

More than a month after his arrest in the last month, authorities from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday filed an additional charging document against Shiv Sena the MP Sanjay Raut in an investigation into money laundering related to a redevelopment project within suburban Mumbai.

On Friday the ED also denied bail to Raut in the belief that he been a key player in the crime through his “proxy and close friend” and co-accused Pravin Raut and was “operating in the shadows” to shield himself from the trial.

Raut was detained on August 1st at the request of ED in the ED and is held behind prison since. This week Raut made his bail first application for the case.

On Thursday this week, the ED has filed its additional chargesheet (chargesheet) to the court case of Raut and other defendants.

The ED asserts that Raut made use of the profits from criminality to the tune of 3.27 crore that he received from Pravin via his sale of Floor Space Index (FRI) of the land that the project was set to be built within Patra Chawl within Goregaon. The ED has stated that the money was used to “creating assets, in addition to spending profits from crime on leisure trips and other expenditures”.

One of the transactions flagged as suspicious by the ED is the amount of Rs 37.50 lakh that was received from Raut along with his partner, Varsha, from Prathamesh Developer which is a business entity that is owned by Pravin. Raut when he filed his application for bail stated that the money came by Prathamesh Developer as return of an investment. Raut claims that he invested in the project of the company in exchange for a promise of a particular income. He claimed that he made the decision to pull out of the investment, and received a small amount of income. The ED claims that Raut invested in the amount of 29.50 million, the investor got an amount of 37.50 lakh as a return within a month from the investment.

“The amount was used to purchase an apartment. The way in which the receipt was made of money proved that the claims of the person who applied for it is not true. In no place does this huge sum return when you cancel the reservations for land. As per the practice generally, the land owner cut a specific percentage of the money booked and refunds the balance, however in the case of this one the land owner paid an amount of 37.50 lakh, which was more than the investment amount of 29.50 million,” the ED has stated.

The ED case is an investigation into cheating that was filed to investigate the rehabilitation of Patra Chawl. In the event that 672 tenants were scheduled to be restored by the scheme but they were, instead, allegedly , cheated by the directors of the infrastructure company HDIL and a company called Guru Ashish Constructions of which Pravin was director. The proceeds from this sale are believed to be worth Rs 1,039.79 million, a portion of this was transferred to the accounts of HDIL and Pravin was paid the sum of Rs. 112 crore according to the agency. The ED claims it is possible that this transfer of funds between Pravin Raut Raut was made from the proceeds of the crime. The ED claimed that, as developers the accused didn’t have the power to market an area of the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the land, but it was done , and not used for the construction for the construction. The ED has issued a chargesheet against Pravin and other individuals.

The ED also argued against the bail of Raut saying that the investigation is in a critical stage, and evidence is surfacing that show his key part in the genesis and execution in the case of laundering money.

“Considering the magnitude of the matter as well as the power and influence exerted by the accused the release of him at this critical point could hinder the investigation in progress,” the ED has declared in addition to stating that he’s one of the most powerful and influent figure.

Raut In his bail plea, stated his bail plea was brought against him in order to “crush the opposition faced with the ruling political party”. The ED said that the case was not a vendetta case.

Related Posts

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button