Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeCompany & PMLAED Terms Bribery Allegation Tactic to Sabotage Ongoing Money Laundering Investigation

ED Terms Bribery Allegation Tactic to Sabotage Ongoing Money Laundering Investigation

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) dismissed bribery allegations made by Aneesh Babu, a suspect in a money laundering case, suggesting that these claims are an attempt to derail the ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) recently registered a First Information Report (FIR) against ED Assistant Director Shekhar Kumar and three others: Wilson Varghese from Kochi, Mukesh Kumar from Rajasthan, and Kochi-based chartered accountant Renjith Warrier. The FIR alleges that Wilson approached Babu, demanding money in return for settling the PMLA case against him. Wilson was arrested while accepting a bribe of ₹2 lakh on behalf of Shekhar Kumar, as part of a trap set by Vigilance officials based on Babu’s complaint. Subsequently, Mukesh Kumar and Renjith Warrier were taken into custody following the investigation.

ED sources have indicated that the agency has sought details from the VACB and will examine the matter thoroughly to determine whether any prima facie case exists. They assert that the bribery allegations are a strategic move by Babu to disrupt the ongoing money laundering probe against him.

The money laundering case against Babu is based on findings from the Income Tax Department, which uncovered significant financial irregularities. The ED maintains that the investigation will continue unaffected by the recent allegations.

Read More: Restaurant to Pay Rs. 8,000 for Overcharging Rs. 1 GST on Bottled Water: Bhopal Consumer Forum

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Support Services To Overseas Group Companies Are Exports, Not Intermediary Services: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, has held that support services...

Closed Premises Alone Can’t Prove Fictitious GST Transactions: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has held that finding...

Seized Diary Entries Alone Can’t Establish Suppressed GST Turnover Without Transaction-Wise Verification: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has held that suppressed...

E-Way Bill Part B Lapse Alone Can’t Justify GST Penalty Without Intent To Evade Tax: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra State Bench, has dismissed a...

More like this

Support Services To Overseas Group Companies Are Exports, Not Intermediary Services: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, has held that support services...

Closed Premises Alone Can’t Prove Fictitious GST Transactions: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has held that finding...

Seized Diary Entries Alone Can’t Establish Suppressed GST Turnover Without Transaction-Wise Verification: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has held that suppressed...