In what could spell more trouble for Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Anil Parab, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has filed an intervention application in his plea seeking quashing of the cheating case registered against him by the Maharashtra Police.
A cheating case was registered against Parab by Maharashtra police and treating this as a “predicate offence”, the ED had filed a money laundering case against Parab. The case concerns the purchase of certain land in Dapoli in 2017.
This is probably one of a rare cases where the investigating agency probing a money laundering case has sought to intervene in the proceedings relating to a predicate offence.
Parab's advocates seek time to file a reply
.jpg)
.jpg)
Parab’s advocates Shardul Singh and Prerna Gandhi sought time to file their reply to the ED's intervention application. The court allowed Parab to file his reply and kept the plea for hearing in the last week of January 2024.
The Income Tax (IT) department, in 2022, conducted raids in several districts in Maharashtra linked to a regional transport officer who was allegedly close to Parab. The investigators claimed that during the raids, they discovered several irregularities relating to the 2017 purchase of some land in Dapoli.
Parab owned a plot of land, which was purchased by his alleged aide Sadanand Kadam in May 207, who then built a resort on it. According to the IT, Rs6 crore was spent over construction of the resort and was sold in 2020 for just Rs11 crore. The department claimed that both Parab and Kadam failed to account for the cost of building the resort.
The Maharashtra police then booked Parab for cheating, forgery, using false property mark and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The ED then registered a money laundering case and conducted raids at seven premises linked to Parab and his alleged close aides.
Parab then approached the HC seeking quashing of the FIR and the chargesheet filed by the state police, wherein it was alleged that Parab made false entries in the official records of the Gram Panchayat regarding the taxation of the land where the resort was built.
Opposing the quashing plea, the ED has said that the FIR contains offences which reveal the generation of the “proceeds of a crime”, which is the basis of the money laundering case registered by the central agency.
ED's response
“The reliefs sought by Parab seek to put an end to a part of the predicate offence which forms the substratum of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) proceedings,” the ED application said. It further added that: “ED during the course of investigation of proceeds of crime generated from the scheduled offences in the FIR and final report is in a position to demonstrate the modus operandi of the commission of the offences alleged in the FIR and final report.”
In that sense ED is an 'interested party' which can assist this court in arriving at a finding as to whether the reliefs as sought by the present petitioner ought to be granted or not, the central agency claimed. It also said that it shall “suffer irreparable harm and prejudice” if it is not heard.
.png)
