'Truly a strange case': Abhishek Manu Singhvi rebuts ED's money laundering charge against Rahul, Sonia in court

Representing Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Friday contended that the case made out by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Congress-linked National Herald newspaper case is "truly a strange one".

He said, "More than strange. Unprecedented," adding that it is an alleged case of money laundering "without any property, without use or projection of property".

Amongst several allegations, ED has alleged that the Gandhis held the majority 76% shares in Young Indian (YI), which allegedly usurped assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan. Responding to this charge, Singhvi argued that the exercise was undertaken to make AJL debt-free. The lawyer added that "every company is entitled under law and does, every day, make their companies get free by a variety of instruments. So you take away the debt and assign it to another entity. So this company becomes debt-free".


He also argued that YI was a not-for-profit company. "This means it cannot give dividends, perks, salaries, or bonuses. It can give (away) nothing," Singhvi added. He also contended that the present court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. ED had on Thursday concluded its arguments in the alleged money laundering case in which Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and other co-accused stand chargesheeted by the agency for their alleged involvement in the Herald newspaper case. The counsel for the agency told a special court on Thursday here that it is a "classic" case of money laundering. The agency further argued that YI was used as a "vehicle" with the intention to allegedly usurp assets worth ₹2,000 crores of AJL, which published the National Herald newspaper.

The federal agency filed a prosecution complaint (equivalent of a chargesheet) against Sonia, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, M/s Young India, M/s Dotex Merchandise and Sunil Bhandari in a local court on April 9. The court will decide on taking the cognisance of the chargesheet only after hearing the contentions of the agency and accused.