Sonia and Rahul were charged by PMLA for the first time.
ED filed a complaint against Sonia, Rahul, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, M/S Young Indian (Yi), M/S Dotex Merchandise and Sunil Bhandari (equivalent to the charge form) and filed a lawsuit in a Delhi court on April 9.
The court charged Ed’s trial fee Tuesday, demanding the agency’s case diary and publishing the matter on April 25 to determine its perception.
Sonia and Rahul repeatedly questioned the Ed Ed Treequarters here in 2022. The people quoted above told ET that ED submitted a charge form after collecting “monetary traces, records evidence and records record statements of defendants and witnesses.”
Ed claims Yi is controlled by Sonia and Rahul because they own 76% of the shares through a well-thought plot. The balance of shares is held by Late Motilal Vohra and Late Oscar Fernades, close partners of Sonia and Rahul. The defendant is a special tool that can “fraudulently obtain AJL’s valuable real estate – with current market value of over Rs 50,000 crore – pay only Rs 5 million”.
As a result, the defendant “deceived AJL’s shareholders and donors to the All-India Congress Committee, which was forced to waive its right to receive Rs 902 crore from AJL for the benefit of YI”.
Sources claimed that under ED Prope’s regulations, AJL property has been used to collect “forged advance rent, with Rs 3.841 crore in revenues during 2017-18. The rent received was found to be fake because there is no rental agreement”.
Ed claimed that after inquiry, it was found that the money was transferred to AJL under the direction of senior congressional leaders without any actual business transactions.
“This shows that the defendant has been continuing to indulge in money laundering by using AJL (in the control and management of YI) as a tool to generate further crime gains,” Ed claimed.
Sources said: “AJL also claimed to have earned Rs 2.945 crore from advertisements published in its newspapers between 2017-18 and 2020-21. It was revealed that Rs 1586 crore from it, and Rs 1586 crore were allegedly received from various institutions in Congress, the remaining amount, the remaining amount, and other payments from 13.59 Crore, all received other income.
They added: “The person/entities who were called up the names mentioned in the ad’s ledger were said they had paid the amount as directed by the congressional leaders, some of whom even revoked the money to seek protection in their regular business. In most of their ads, most of the ads given did not meet the donor’s donor, which is the highest range in Congress, because these sent them, which is the most important, and it is a birthday to welcome these contributions.
Ed claims Yi was merged into a nonprofit/charity company, but “there is no such charity in the company.” The company allegedly acquired a 99% majority stake in AJL through only fake transactions.
To acquire the AICC loan of Rs 902 crore, which can be recovered from AJL (selling for Rs 5 lakh) as part of the deal, Yi received an admission fee of Rs 1 crore from a Shell Company M/S Dotex Merchandise in Kolkata, part of its money laundering scheme, without funds for so-called charitable activities and enjoyed Ed’s claim.
According to the provisions of the ED, YI received Rs 181.2 crore (approximately Rs 181.2 crore donations/donations) from individuals/entities during the period 2017-18, but has not been considered true. It claimed: “The purpose of collecting forged donations is to fulfill the income tax needs of M/s young Indians, which was arising from the income tax assessment order of December 27, 2017.”
It added: “Otherwise, this tax demand will fall on the major shareholders and beneficial owners of Yi Ie Sonia and Rahul. This shows that the defendants have been continuing to bear money laundering by using YI as a criminal gain that generates further gains.”
