Earlier in February, the division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan of the Bombay High Court had quashed the ED’s money laundering case against the couple for want of a predicate offence. The bench had, however, observed that if any fresh case is registered against the couple by any law enforcement agency, the ED could probe them.
According to sources, the fresh money laundering case is based on the recent FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Goyal in which Canara Bank is the complainant. A predicate offence is a must for the ED to register a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
According to the CBI’s FIR, a complaint was submitted by the chief general manager, recovery and legal section, at Canara Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex in Mumbai, alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct by the accused, causing the bank a wrongful loss of ₹538.62 crore.
According to the complaint, JIL, promoted by Tail Winds, an overseas company owned by Goyal and his associates, had been dealing with Canara Bank since 2005. However, since August 2018, the company claimed it was facing liquidity and operational issues. Subsequently, an SBI-led consortium decided to initiate resolution for corporate insolvency. The accounts held with Canara Bank turned non-performing asset in June 2019.
A forensic audit conducted by EY revealed that JIL had paid ₹1,410.41 crore to related parties of total commission expenses. Also, expenses of general selling agents (GSA) were paid by JIL amounting to ₹403.27 crore, which was not in tune with the GSA agreement.The complaint also alleges that funds were siphoned off through Jet Lite (India), a subsidiary, by way of making advance and investing and subsequently writing off of the same by making provision.
For all the latest world News Click Here
