New Delhi: Jailed former Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji has not been able to substantively explain the source of cash deposits in his bank accounts, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued before the Supreme Court Monday, opposing his bail plea in a cash-for-jobs case.
The probe agency said the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader had floated a “false narrative” by saying the cash deposits were a result of cash withdrawals, and gifts from family members. In its five-point rebuttal, the ED said the minister’s explanation was “devoid of merit and economic rationale”.
The agency made this argument in a counter-affidavit filed in response to a special leave petition (SLP) by Balaji seeking bail from the apex court. Balaji moved the top court after his bail plea was junked by the Madras High Court in February.
Balaji was arrested in June last year in a money-laundering probe originating from three cases, which alleged irregularities and payments of bribes to the minister between 2011 and 2015, when he headed the state’s transport department. The money was allegedly paid for jobs in his department.
He was the transport minister in the then All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government and joined the now-ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 2018.
Cash also went to wife, family, says ED
The ED registered the case in July 2021 based on a status report by Chennai’s Central Crime Branch, which said the bribes from job aspirants were collected by Balaji directly or through his two assistants, Shanmugan and Karthikeyan. The agency said Balaji took the funds to hire aspirants as junior engineers, assistant engineers, junior assistants, junior tradesman, drivers and conductors in the state’s transport department between 2011 to 2016.
The ED has further alleged that the proceeds of crime amounted to Rs 67.75 crore and not merely the Rs 1.34 crore that was deposited in Balaji’s bank accounts. The central agency said Balaji got Rs 1.34 crore from 2013-14 to 2021-22, while his wife S. Megala got cash deposits of Rs 29.55 lakh between 2014-25 and 2018-2019. Scrutiny of his brother Ashok Kumar’s accounts revealed he received deposits of Rs 13.13 crore, while his wife A. Nirmala got Rs 53.89 lakh, the agency said.
The agency has maintained these cash deposits were disproportionately higher than the income tax returns filed by the family, and hence were “nothing but proceeds of crime”.
Balaji told the Supreme Court that the cash deposits of Rs 1.34 crore came from his agricultural and salary incomes.
In the special leave petition filed before the apex court and seen by ThePrint, Balaji has argued that the ED has analysed bank statements between 2014 and 2020 only to breach the ceiling of Rs 1 crore for proceedings under the PMLA.
Additionally, he argued that even the ED has said that 2013-14 is not the financial year when the alleged predicate offence took place, and also that he was not in any official capacity between 2017-2021. Hence income derived during these years were from his salary as an MLA and “petty sources” of agriculture.
“The financial year 2013-14, even as per the respondent, is not the period of alleged scam of cash for jobs and the period commencing from 2017-18 till 2020-21 are the periods where the petitioner was not in any government post and the income derived from the said period are of the salary being Member of Legislative Assembly and through some petty sources of agriculture etc. Therefore, in order to give upper limit to the ceiling prescribed under the act, such alleged quantum of Rupees 1.34 crore has been increased and derived. by the respondent,” Balaji argued in the SLP.
The ED rejected this claim, saying an analysis of his poll affidavit before the 2021 Tamil Nadu assembly elections and his income tax returns suggested that his agricultural income was “meagre” and that his salary was not given in cash.
The agency further said Balaji himself had “accepted” no other mode of income in cash apart from agricultural income but when he was asked about the source of the cash deposits, he had failed to provide any “substantive” explanation.
Also read: How very similar clean chits in decade-old cases have now landed 2 DMK ministers back on trial
‘False narrative to suit convenience’
In its affidavit, the agency said: “The petitioner has claimed that the source of cash deposits made in his bank accounts is through cash withdrawals from bank accounts, gifts from family members, cash-in-hand disclosures etc. These claims are devoid of any merit and logic for the reasons stated hereunder: Firstly, the petitioner has been given ample opportunity vide various summons as explained in detail in [the] prosecution complaint, to substantiate the cash deposits made. However, he has not been able to explain or substantiate a single cash deposit during interrogation proceedings.
“Therefore, it is an afterthought process to create a false narrative so as to suit the convenience of the accused. Even in the present petition, he has not disclosed a single person’s name/details who made cash deposits in his bank accounts as per the counter foil slips of cash deposit challans.”
“Secondly, the petitioner has tried to adopt an easy escape route of claiming complete cash withdrawals as source of cash deposits across a period of around nine years as if he has never made any expenses out of it. Merely claiming that cash withdrawal is the source of cash deposit do (sic) not have any logical or economic rationale.”
The affidavit further said Balaji’s “gifts from family” explanation was false because there were no details of these in his income documents or poll affidavit. This proves that Balaji used his family members to receive the money generated from the “cash-for-jobs scam”, the ED said.
The agency rebutted Balaji’s claim that the poll affidavit had “cash in hand” details, alleging this did not prove the authenticity and source of the money, and also said the rules mandated the use of withdrawals from election accounts only for election purposes. The ED said if this was done, not an “iota of evidence” was provided to prove the genuineness of this claim.
“Lastly, the Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of cash-withdrawals, gifts from family, cash in hand disclosure in election affidavits etc. as source[s] of cash deposits as they are proved to be either false or non-genuine. Hence, the contention under the said para is liable to be rejected,” the ED argued.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: Quashing ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention under Goondas Act, HC questions Tamil Nadu govt’s intentions