Mumbai: Opposing the discharge plea of deputy registrar Ravindra Muley in a money laundering case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently submitted that he was knowingly involved in assisting and abetting former revenue minister Eknath Khadse, his wife Mandakini Khadse, and son-in-law Girish Chaudhari in the concealment, possession and acquisition of proceeds of crime.
The ED stated Muley was involved in the conspiracy of the illicit purchase of MIDC land by Chaudhari and Mandakini at a price of Rs 3.75 crore, which was far lower than the actual value of Rs 23.8 crore. "In such cases, it is not necessary that the accused has derived or obtained the proceeds of crime. Merely providing assistance knowingly to other accused persons in any process or activity will constitute the offence of money laundering," the ED said in its reply. Khadse, Mandakini and Chaudhari are accused of land grab, causing a loss of Rs 761.25 crore to govt by fraudulently entering into a sale deed.
The ED alleged Chaudhari, with the connivance of others, knowingly entered into a sale deed to avail compensation of more than the actual value of the land. It was further alleged that Khadse misused his authority when he was part of the BJP-Sena cabinet to buy the three-acre plot in Bhosari, Pune district, which belonged to the MIDC, in Mandakini and Chaudhari's names.
Opposing Muley's plea, the ED said he misused his official position as a sub-registrar while registering the sale deed of the land. "At the time of registration, he knew the actual value of the land. However, despite having this knowledge, he did not take any step to safeguard the rights of the govt, ie, MIDC, and further suppressed the true value of the land, ie, Rs 22.83 crore, in connivance with Girish Chaudhari and Mandakini Khadse while registering the said sale deed on the agreement value of Rs 3.75 crore of the land," the reply said.
Submitting that the prosecution is nothing but a result of political vendetta where he has been made a scapegoat, Khadse too filed a discharge plea. "The applicant states that there is not even a prima facie case which is spelt out in the complaint which can attract the provisions of PMLA. The respondent (Enforcement Director) has failed to make out a case of dishonest intention or fraudulent transaction," the plea said. The discharge plea said there was no abuse of power as the transaction that took place could have taken place even by a person who did not hold any public office or have any influence, political or otherwise.