In a significant development in the National Herald case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told a Delhi court on Wednesday that it has “prima facie” established a case of money laundering against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, among others.
The statement came during preliminary arguments before Special Judge Vishal Gogne at Rouse Avenue Court, where the ED presented its findings and urged the court to take cognisance of the matter.
The agency claimed that key transactions involving the Congress-linked company Young Indian were illicit and involved “proceeds of crime”, which included rental income worth Rs 142 crore received by the accused.
The court, acknowledging the gravity of the submissions, ordered the ED to furnish a copy of its prosecution complaint to BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, whose 2012 private complaint triggered the high-profile investigation.
Further, Judge Gogne scheduled daily hearings in the case from July 2 to 8, stating: “The matter shall be taken up on a daily basis from July 2 till July 8 for submissions on behalf of ED and the proposed accused.”
With hearings now scheduled for early July, the high-stakes case is poised to enter a crucial phase, likely to reverberate through both legal and political corridors.
Representing the Gandhis, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought a deferment of proceedings until July, citing the voluminous case records. The request was partially accommodated, with the court allowing the ED to proceed with its opening arguments on Wednesday itself.
Appearing for the agency, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain laid out the core of the ED’s allegations. They contended that the financial dealings surrounding Young Indian and Associated Journals Ltd (AJL)—publisher of the National Herald—violated Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with receiving stolen property.
Hossain argued that Young Indian, controlled by the accused, served no genuine business purpose other than to “benefit the accused”. According to him, once AJL’s shares were transferred to Young Indian for a nominal sum, the shares and subsequent gains became proceeds of crime. He further asserted that this amounted to cheating, claiming that the transfer of assets — including prime real estate and rental income — was unlawful.
