ED summons ex-Kerala CM’s daughter in PMLA case
The Enforcement Directorate has summoned former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena T and officials of sand mining company Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) for questioning in a money laundering case.
Officials said Veena has been asked to depose at the central agency’s zonal office here on June 12. Her statement will be recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
CMRL managing director Sasidharan Kartha and other company officials are among the nine others who have been summoned for questioning on different dates beginning this week, the officials said.
The investigation pertains to alleged irregularities in CMRL’s financial transactions and its links with Veena’s now-defunct company Exalogic Solutions Private Limited.
The ED is probing an allegation that CMRL made fraudulent payments worth Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions under the guise of ‘IT consultancy services’.
Another company named Empower India Capital Investment Private Limited, operated by Kartha, had also extended loans worth Rs 50 lakh to Exalogic Solutions despite its failure to make timely repayments, the officials said.
They claimed that the CMRL management and Veena generated “proceeds of crime” in this process and that they want to understand the rationale behind these transactions from them.
The PMLA case was filed in March 2024 after the ED took cognisance of a complaint registered by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), the investigation arm of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which later filed a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) before an Ernakulam court in April 2025.
The CMRL was caught in the crosshairs of central probe agencies following an Income Tax Department raid in January 2019, which unearthed alleged fake expenses to the tune of Rs 130 crore. Court documents reveal that the company had “inflated” its expenditure by Rs 133.82 crore by booking “bogus” cash expenses under the heads of ‘transportation’ and ‘sludge handling’ between the financial years 2012-13 and 2018-19 and generated cash that was used to make illegal payments to politicians, parties, media houses and public servants.
The court papers State that the CMRL CFO and MD “admitted” before tax authorities that such cash payments were made to ensure smooth business operations, as they faced threats of closure of the business and environmental challenges.
Officials said CMRL “admitted” to making these “fake” expenses before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Later, a complaint was made to the SFIO.
In its prosecution complaint, the SFIO said that CMRL made fictitious cash expenses worth Rs 182 crore over a span of 15 years to “bribe” various people and that it paid Rs 91 crore towards transport services to companies owned by the Kartha family.
Last week, the Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by CMRL against a single-judge verdict that allowed the ED to continue its money laundering probe into this case.
CPI(M) seeks to distance itself from Veena Vijayan after ED summons
Thiruvananthapuram: The ED summons to T Veena, daughter of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in a money-laundering case triggered political reactions on Tuesday, with CPI(M) leaders seeking to distance the party from the matter and saying that she would deal with it through legal channels.
The remarks also came in the wake of criticism over a violent protest allegedly carried out by party workers following the recent ED raid at Veena’s residence here in connection with the case.
Reacting to the development, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas said the law should take its own course in the matter. “Veena’s case should proceed on its own merits. Let the investigation take its course,” Brittas told reporters in New Delhi.
He said Veena had already furnished details before the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Seeking an ED investigation into the donations made by a Kerala-based sand mining company named Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) to leaders of various political parties, Brittas called for a comprehensive probe into the company’s political contributions. Claiming that certain political parties had acknowledged receiving funds from the company, Brittas said questions should also be raised regarding whether such contributions were duly disclosed to the Election Commission.” When viewed in that context, the disputes relating to Veena’s case are comparatively small,” he said.
