Ed denies suspected of human rights violations at Tasmack headquarters during search operations

Images for representative purposes | Image source: ANI

The Enforcement Bureau (ED) firmly denied the allegations of the Tamil Nadu government and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on April 17, 2025 that on March 6 and August 8, the ED search and Seizure operation were violated by Tasmack officials during the ED search and Seizure operation.

With the assistance of ED Special Attorney N. Ramesh, he appeared before the division judges of SM Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar, and read out the contents of Panchanamas recorded during the search. He highlighted the records that Tasmack officials were given enough rest and allowed women employees to go home at night.

He said the panchanamas were signed by Tasmac officials who did not raise any complaints of human rights violations until three written petitions (a state government) and two TASMAC were filed to declare the search and seizure operations illegal and to limit ED officials in Guise of Queise oil of Ohe of of of Guise.

Mr Raju said the complaints about human rights violations appeared to be in the case of some lawyers to maintain the current written petition. ASG said if ED officials harasse or impose any form of force, ASG said Tasmac S. Visakan’s managing director is an Indian Administrative Services Agency (IAS) official.

The lawyer asserted that the entire search and seizures were conducted in a peaceful manner, with the data of the cell phone and the email accounts of the top TAMSAC officials recorded their hash value in front of these officials and with the assistance of technical experts. “It seems like the data was not obtained secretly,” he said.

Advocate General PS Raman pointed out that Article 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 requires certain prerequisites to be followed before conducting a search. It requires ED officials to record in writing the reasons for “believe” that the person being searched bears money laundering or possesses criminal proceeds, etc.

Section 17(2) of the Act requires ED officials to record the reasons for “believe” in writing “immediately” and “immediately” after searching. “However, in this case, the reason for ‘believing’ was sent to the adjudication authority only on March 15, 2025, about six days after the end of the search operation,” AG said.

To satisfy themselves on this issue, the judges read the reasons for “belief” submitted to them by the emergency department in the sealed cover and returned the document to Mr Ramesh after careful reading of the document by the public court. Although Mr Raju said the judge could keep the document until the judgment on the current written petition was made, the judge refused to do so because the contents of the document were confidential.

After a thorough hearing, the judge directed the High Court Registration Form to list the matter again on Monday (21 April 2025) to briefly respond to Vikas Singh’s short reply to Tasmac and said the judgment would remain after hearing his argument.