Enforcement Directorate has got the court’s nod to confiscate Rs55 lakh cash recovered from Nasir Safi Mir, an alleged financial brain behind terrorist and separatist groups in Jammu & Kashmir, making it the “first successful” case of seizure of terror funds in the country.
Mir, who was declared a proclaimed offender by a courtearlier, had managed to procure bail in 2007 on health grounds from Delhi High Court and later fled via Nepalallegedly using a fake passport. He is still on the run. He was arrested on February 3, 2006, from here by the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
The ED, based on police FIR, had registered a money laundering case against him in 2007. Besides Rs55 lakh, arms and ammunition were also seized from Mir at the time of his arrest.
ED, after provisionally attaching the said cash in 2013, had sought the permission of a special anti-money laundering court here to confiscate the money which had been lying in the custody of the Delhi Police till now.
“At the request of Enforcement Directorate, a special court in Delhi issued confiscation order in respect of Rs55lakh under the provisions of PMlA,” the agency said on Sunday.
Mir, who was reported to be closely associated with Hurriyat Conference Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, was subjected to extensive interrogation by central security agencies during which he is claimed to have spoken about his links with the separatist groups and banned terror outfit Hizbul Mujahideen.
The Mirwaiz, in 2014, had said he knew Mir and his family but he had nothing to do with the case in which he was arrested.
Mir’s disappearance from the country had raised eyebrows within the security establishment as it was suspected that some officials had facilitated his escape.
According to the ED attachment order issued in December 2013, the cash was “proceeds of crime of terrorist funding and money laundering and hence stands attached”.
The ED has called it as the first major action against terror funding in the country under the stringent provisions of money laundering laws where the onus is on the accused to prove himself innocent.