“Illegal favours are found to have been extended by Yes Bank to Avantha Group. Any quid pro quo for extending such illegal benefit is yet to be ascertained,” ED alleged in its remand paper as reported by ET last week.
The ongoing case against Gautam Thapar for an alleged ₹500-crore-plus bank loan fraud “might have wide ramifications”, a local court observed in its order remanding the Avantha Group promoter to 10 days custodial interrogation of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“It appears that thorough and detailed custodial interrogation of this accused (Thapar) will be required in this case regarding the modus operandi pertaining to the commission of offence and to dig out other documentary evidenc.
A replica of the order, handed final Thursday, was made obtainable on Tuesday.
“The details of the money trail have also to be worked out,” it mentioned. “The involvement of the accused along with earlier management of the Yes Bank is also to be worked out. This case might have wide ramifications involving proceeds of crime involving huge amounts of more than ₹500 crore.”
ED had arrested Thapar on August 3 on fees of taking part in a “key role” in laundering greater than ₹500 crore in a financial institution mortgage fraud case.
“Illegal favours are found to have been extended by Yes Bank to Avantha Group. Any quid pro quo for extending such illegal benefit is yet to be ascertained,” ED alleged in its remand paper as reported by ET final week.
The native court docket allowed an utility moved by Thapar’s counsels Vijay Aggarwal and Sandeep Kapur, and directed the ED to furnish particulars of “pendency” of different instances registered by the company in opposition to Thapar, if any, to his counsel(s) inside every week by way of e-mode.
In response to a different utility moved by Thapar’s counsels, the company assured the court docket that Thapar’s interrogation can be performed beneath audio visible CCTV surveillance.
Counsel for the company had alleged that “sham agreements” had been made by Thapar’s firms to acquire a mortgage of ₹500 crore from Yes Bank. Countering the cost, Aggarwal had argued that Thapar is the “victim” within the immediate case and that the mentioned sham agreements had been executed by the official of Yes Bank to safe “valuable shares” of Thapar’s firm.
In its remand paper, ED had alleged that its probe revealed that ₹500 crore (roughly) proceeds of crime had been laundered by way of various firms “controlled and beneficially owned directly or indirectly” by Thapar, together with Oyster
(OBPL), Jhabua Power (JPL), Jhabua Power Investment (JPIL), Avantha Power & Infrastructure (APIL), and Avantha Realty.
Read more at:
Comments
Post a Comment