New Delhi [India], July 8 : The Rouse Avenue court on Tuesday heard the rebuttal arguments by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju on the cognisance of a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others.
ASG Raju submitted that there was no transparency and that other shareholders were dummies for Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.
"Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi may not be getting a dividend today, they may get their due share the moment they quit," he contended.
The Special Judge, after hearing part of the arguments, listed the matter for July 12 for hearing the remaining arguments by the ASG.
At the outset, ASG submitted that as per the Companies Act, a 'not-for-profit company' can undertake commercial activities.
"They got the shares at a cheaper price...," ASG said.
It was also submitted by the ASG that shares held by Congress leaders Motilal Vohra and Oscar Fernandes, who have passed away, were transferred. He said that their shares were not sold in open market as it would have disclosed the actual price of share.
It was also argued that there was a criminal breach of trust, adding that any property acquired by a criminal breach of trust is stolen property.
The possession of stolen property attracts section 411 of IPC, which is a scheduled offence under PMLA.
ASG submitted that there was a criminal breach of trust by AICC and AJL in relation to Rs 90 crore.
Young Indian had also obtained a loan from a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), identified as Dotex.
During the pre-lunch session, Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, appeared for Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd. He submitted that Dotex was registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company by the Reserve Bank of India in February 2010.
"There is no cancellation of my registration. When RBI has given a recognition. The ED can't overreach by calling Dotex a sham accommodation entry operator," Dubey said.
For the day-to-day functioning of the Young Indian company, a loan was required. A loan was obtained from Dotex, the Senior Advocate stated.
"Is this written anywhere that the loan was given to acquire the property of AJL. My knowledge was that the loan was taken for the day-to-day function of the company," Dubey added.
There is no criminal intent on the part of Dotex, no role in alleged offence, he said.
The Senior Advocate rejected allegations of conspiracy. 'Jiske khilaf koi case nahi, uske khilaf Conspiracy hai.' (the ones who have no case against them, they have a conspiracy)
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, the theory of conspiracy is not applicable in the cases of PMLA, the Senior Advocate argued.
The ED's claim of the cheque of Rs 1 crore being dated as October 24, 2010 was also disputed with the claim that the cheque was of December 24, 2010.
It was also submitted that loan was given on the basis valid documents though it was not on stamp paper. "Dotex got interest at the rate of 14 percent. The repayment of loan was also done. Every information was given to ED, it was not considered," said Dubey.
"Dotex has not committed any offence, then where is the question of Sunil Bhandari doing offence being a director. He has done nothing, they (ED) cannot connect me with the other accused," the Senior Advocate said.
"My act is not a part of criminal activity, my giving loan is not a criminal activity," he added.
Advocate Soujanya Sankaran appeared for Sunil Bhandari, whose name is in the ED chargesheet, and submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance.
"The foundational fact has to be produced by the ED," she added.
She also submitted that this case is based on a complaint filed by Subramaniam Swamy.
There is no foundational basis to proceed against accused Sunil Bhandari, who is director of Dotex, she submitted.