VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Feb. 19: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is learnt to have started a money-laundering probe against former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD chief Lalu Prasad and other convicts of the fodder scam worth Rs 950 crore.
Initially, the agency has taken up two cases namely RC 38 A/ 96 and RC 45/96 where the judgments were delivered by Shivpal Singh, the judge of the special CBI court in Ranchi on March 19, 2018, and April 9, 2018, respectively.
Lalu Prasad was among the 19 accused who were convicted in the case RC 38 A/ 96 related to the illegal withdrawal of Rs 3.76 crore from the treasury of Dumka district. The court had handed over separate sentencing of seven years of rigorous imprisonment under provisions of IPC and Prevention of the Corruption Act along with a fine of Rs 60 lakh to Lalu Prasad.
Lalu along with Ajeet Kumar Verma, Arun Kumar Singh, Bimal Kant Das, Gopi Nath Das, Krishna Kumar Prasad, Manoranjan Prasad, Mohinder Singh Bedi, Nand Kishore Prasad, Naresh Prasad, Om Prakash Diwakar, Pankaj Mohan Bhui, Phool Chand Singh, Pitamber Jha, Radha Mohan Mandal, Raj Kumar Sharma alias Raja Ram Joshi, Raghu Nandan Prasad, Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and Shardendu Kumar Das were held guilty.
During the trial, 13 charge-sheeted accused persons died namely B.B. Prasad (Budget Officer), Bhola Ram Tufani (Minister), Chandra Deo Prasad Verma (Minister), Chhathoo Prasad (Treasury officer), Kalika Prasad Sinha (Accountant), K. Arumugam (Secretary), Mahendra Prasad, (supplier), Raghavendra Kumar Das (Administrative Officer), Rajendra Singh (Veterinary Officer), Ram Raj Ram (Director), S.N. Singh (Veterinary Officer), Shyam Bihari Sinha (Joint Director) and Wasimuddin (Veterinary Officer).
The court had directed the ED to confiscate the disproportionate movable and immovable property of the convicts and 13 deceased accused which was acquired since January 1990 and later on.
In RC 45A/ 96, the court had passed a similar order related to the illegal withdrawal of Rs 34.91 crore from the Dumka treasury. A total of 37 accused were convicted whereas 17 accused persons had died during the trial hence proceedings against them were dropped. The court directed the ED to confiscate the disproportionate movable and immovable property of convicts and deceased accused.
About the deceased accused in both the cases, the court said even if they died, they can’t be freed from civil liabilities, and the properties found in the possession of the deceased accused or their relatives may be confiscated.
It may be a matter of legal debate whether provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be applied to a crime committed much before PMLA was enacted. But it has triggered trouble for Lalu Prasad who so far has been convicted in five fodder scam cases and the trial of the sixth case is going on. A couple of days back, Lalu was convicted in RC RC 47 A/96 related to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs 139.35 crores from Doranda treasury of Ranchi during 1995-96.
The ED armed with the power to attach and confiscate disproportionate assets and proceeds of crime has made an entry into the investigation of the fodder scam when the trial in almost all cases is over. During the money laundering investigation, the ED may sink its teeth in other fodder scam cases.
Previous instance of attachment proceedings in RC 20A/96
Sources in the CBI familiar with the fodder scam probe said that a similar order was passed in RC 20A/96 related to the illegal withdrawal of Rs. 37.70 crore from Chaibasa treasury. This was the first case in which Lalu Prasad was convicted. In this case, the court had directed the CBI to start attachment proceedings. Under the provisions of the Criminal law Amendment Ordinance 1944, the CBI had seized about Rs 10 crore cash from various accused and approvers like Dipesh Chandak (Rs 2.33 crore), Shyam Bihari Sinha (Rs 2.50 crore), and others. Besides, the CBI had seized the gold bond worth 200 kg.
But the fate of these ill-begotten assets raised out of the loot of the public exchequer is yet to be decided since the matter is said to be pending before the court.
| ReplyForward |
