A Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Court in Kolkata has dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) complaint. This is against Senior Advocate Nalini Chidambaram in connection with the Saradha Chit Fund scam. The court found no prima facie evidence of money laundering against Chidambaram.
Presiding Judge Prashanta Mukhopadhyay found no case under Section 3. Punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 against Chidambaram.
The ED had argued that Chidambaram received Rs. 1.349 crore between June 11, 2010, and June 17, 2012. From Sudipta Sen through his companies without issuing any bill or invoice. The ED further stated that several summonses were issued to Chidambaram. In response to one on February 3, 2016, her authorised representative was Advocate N.R.R. Arun Natarajan. He indicated there was no formal agreement between Chidambaram and Sen or his entities.
Background
Chidambaram claimed her interactions with Sudipta Sen were through Mrs. Manoranjana Sinh. Saradha Realty India Ltd. paid Sinh’s TV business fees on her behalf. However, the ED argued that Chidambaram could not provide supporting documents for these payments. They did not issue any acknowledgement of payment.
The prosecution also pointed to a statement by Naresh Balodia, Advocate for the Saradha Group, indicating Chidambaram’s participation in meetings on SEBI-related matters, with her expenses covered by the Saradha Group. The ED claimed that between June 11, 2010, and June 17, 2012, Rs. 1.32 crore was paid by the Saradha Group to Chidambaram without any formal agreement.
Judge Mukhopadhyay examined whether the alleged offence warranted cognizance. He noted that Chidambaram, a senior advocate and tax consultant, provided legal services to Sudipta Sen, his companies, and Mrs. Manoranjana Sinh, receiving fees from June 2010 to June 2012. The court emphasised that whether the lack of a tax invoice or bill constitutes a service tax violation is for other authorities to investigate, not the ED.
Ultimately, the court ruled that legal fees and expenses do not qualify as proceeds of crime. Judge Mukhopadhyay concluded that there was no prima facie case under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 against Nalini Chidambaram.
