Nearly two months after it arrested him in an alleged money laundering and corruption case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday filed a comprehensive supplementary charge sheet before a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court against Maharashtra’s former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and named his two sons Hrishikesh and Salil in the case.
In a 7,000-page charge sheet filed before the PMLA court, the ED charged that Deshmukh and his family members controlled 27 dummy companies based in Delhi and used that money to donate Rs 4.18 crore to the former State Home Minister’s Sai Shikshan Sanstha.
Among other things, the ED alleged in its supplementary charge-sheet that Deshmukh was the prime beneficiary of the laundering of the bribe monies allegedly collected by dismissed policeman Sachin Vaze, who is also an accused in the same case.
Among other things, the supplementary charge sheet comrpises statements of Deshmukh, Mumbai’s former police commissioner Parambir Singh, ex-Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte, certain IPS officers, police officials and other witnesses in the case. It also contains various documents and other evidence that surfaced during the investigations.
In the first charge-sheet filed on August 23, 2021, the ED had named 14 accused, including Deshmukh’s private secretary Sanjeev Palande and personal assistant Kundan Shinde, a trust run by the Deshmukh family in Nagpur, and others. It contained Mr. Palande’s statement admitting that Deshmukh had a role in transfer posting of police officers, especially the posting of IPS officers.
It may be recalled that Deshmukh was arrested November 2 in the alleged money laundering case linked to the charges of extortion made against him by Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh.
An IPS officer of the 1988 batch, Singh had on March 20 made a sensational allegation of corruption against Deshmukh that he had asked arrested and suspended police officer Sachin Vaze to "collect" a staggering Rs 100 crore per month from bars, restaurants and other sources.
Following the allegations made by Singh, Deshmukh had resigned from his post as the State Home Minister on April 5, within hours after the Bombay High Court ordered a “Preliminary Enquiry” (PE) by the CBI into the serious charges of corruption made against him by Mumbai’s former Police
Commissioner.
Deshmukh is being investigated by the CBI in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered by it on April 24 section 7 of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-b (conspiracy) of IPC for an “attempt to obtain undue advantage for important and dishonest performance of the public duty”.
Having prima facie found “cognisance offences” of corruption and conspiracy against him during a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) conducted by it into the allegations made against him by Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh, the CBI on April 21 registered a regular case against him and other unknown people.
The ED probe began after the CBI filed an FIR against Deshmukh on April 21 accusing him of graft and misusing his official position as minister. On his part, Deshmukh has consistently denied the allegations of corruption and money laundering against him.
Having established a trail for Rs 4.7 crore allegedly paid by the 10 bar owners in Mumbai over a period of three months December 2020 and February 2021, the ED had conducted raids on the three residences and one property of Deshmukh on June 25.
The ED has alleged that of the total amount, Rs 4.18 crore was then deposited in cash with four Delhi-based shell companies– Reliable Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd, VA Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Utsav Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Sital Leasing and finance Pvt.
ltd.
These firms subsequently donated the entire money to Shri Sai Shikshan Sansthan Trust, a charitable trust headed by Anil Deshmukh and his family.
Among other things, the ED had told the court on June 26 that Rs. 40 lakh was paid by 60 bar owners to the now dismissed and incarcerated API Sachin Waze in December last year. The bar owners have told the ED that the amount was paid for ‘smooth functioning’ of their establishments.