"Strange, Unprecedented Case Without Proceeds Of Crime": Singhvi Defends Sonia Gandhi In ED’s National Herald Case

Appearing before Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court, Singhvi began his rebuttal after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju concluded his arguments on July 3 regarding the Court's cognisance of the ED’s chargesheet.

“This is truly a strange case. More than strange. Unprecedented. This is an alleged case of money laundering without any proceeds of crime, without property, without use or projection of property,” Singhvi argued, calling into question the very basis of the ED's case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and others, of conspiring to fraudulently take over properties worth over Rs. 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.

Central to the ED’s case is the claim that the Gandhis, through Young Indian Pvt Ltd, a Section 8 not-for-profit company in which they held 76% of shares, orchestrated the unlawful acquisition of AJL’s assets by using a Rs. 90 crore loan from the Congress Party to wipe out AJL’s debt, effectively gaining control of its properties.

Countering this narrative, Singhvi argued that the transaction was aimed solely at making AJL debt-free. “Every company is entitled under law, and does every day, make their companies debt free by a variety of instruments. So, you take away the debt and assign it to another entity. This company becomes debt free. That’s all,” he said.

He further stressed that Young Indian, as a not-for-profit company, could not distribute profits to its shareholders. “It cannot give dividends, it cannot give perks, it cannot give salaries, it cannot give those bonuses. It can give nothing,” Singhvi submitted, dismissing the ED’s allegations of personal enrichment by the accused.

The Senior Counsel also criticised the timing and origin of the ED’s investigation, pointing out that the agency did not take independent action but picked up a private complaint filed years after the transaction.

“They are, obviously, people associated with the Congress. To have the National Herald in a body not associated with the Congress would be worse than having Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark,” Singhvi remarked, defending the Congress Party’s historic ties with the National Herald.

Singhvi also raised jurisdictional objections, asserting that the present court lacked the authority to try the case under the circumstances.

On May 21, the Delhi Court began hearing arguments on the cognisance of a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others in connection with a money laundering case linked to the National Herald matter.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED had opened the submissions by asserting that a prima facie offence of money laundering is made out against the accused. He had said the case involves generation of proceeds of crime through continuous criminal activity, which satisfies the ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

ASG Raju had submitted that the complaint, filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, has been lodged against seven accused persons, including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, and Young Indian. He also informed the Court that property attachments in the case were made in November 2023, and until then, the accused continued to enjoy the proce

It is to be noted that on May 8, the Delhi Court had adjourned proceedings in the case. “Since the notice has purportedly been served upon an alternative email ID upon the proposed accused 4 (Sam Pitroda) only today, it is appropriate that submissions on the aspect of cognisance are heard on the next date of hearing,” the Court had observed.

On May 2, the Delhi Court had issued notices to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald money laundering case, observing that their “right to be heard at any stage breathes life into a fair trial.” The Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court had noted that the right of the accused to present their side was available at the time of cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Background

The ED had recently filed its prosecution complaint (chargesheet) in the case, which stems from a private criminal complaint originally filed by BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy before a magistrate court on June 26, 2014. That complaint prompted the initiation of the financial probe in 2021, with the ED alleging large-scale money laundering involving key Congress figures.

According to the ED, the case involves a “criminal conspiracy” in the alleged fraudulent takeover of assets worth over Rs. 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper. Among those named in the conspiracy are Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, her son and senior party leader Rahul Gandhi, the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, as well as Suman Dubey, technocrat Sam Pitroda, and the private company Young Indian.

The central agency has alleged that Young Indian, a company formed in 2010, acquired 100% of AJL's shares through a series of transactions that involved financial irregularities and violations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi each hold a 38% stake in Young Indian, effectively giving them majority control. The ED has accused the Congress leadership of misusing party funds and instrumentalising Young Indian to acquire valuable AJL properties, originally intended for journalistic purposes, for commercial benefit. As part of its investigation, the ED had previously summoned and questioned both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi for several hours.

With the issuance of notice, the Delhi court has now formally involved the Gandhis in the current stage of proceedings, where the ED's chargesheet awaits judicial consideration. The court's order reinforces the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice by ensuring that the accused are given an opportunity to be heard before any further action is taken. The matter will be heard again on May 8.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sonia Gandhi & Ors.

[Inputs: PTI]