The Enforcement Directorate sent Letters Rogatories to try and get information, but most countries did not respond, severely weakening its case.
New Delhi: Eight of 10 countries the Enforcement Directorate sent Letters Rogatories (LRs) to seeking information about money allegedly laundered in the 2G case did not respond, badly hurting the probe, top sources told ThePrint.
CBI special court judge O.P. Saini last week acquitted all the accused in the case, saying that since the amount in question – about Rs 200 crore in alleged kickbacks – was returned by prime accused former telecom minister A. Raja, there were no “proceeds of crime”.
“There are no proceeds of crime, there can be no offence of money laundering, as nothing remains to be laundered and thus, the very base of the instant case is gone and the alleged offence stands wiped out,” he said.
What is an LR?
An LR is a formal communication from a competent court to a foreign court, and processed by the Ministry of External Affairs on behalf of investigative agencies, to obtain information about individuals and entities offshore.
According to officials, LRs were sent to Russia, UAE, Norway, Cyprus, Mauritius, Libya, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, France, and Singapore between 2010 and 2012. However, only France and Cyprus sent their responses. In 2012, the British Virgin Islands too sent a response, but did not share any relevant information, following which a supplementary LR was filed.
“There are several LRs pending in the 2G case, pertaining to alleged kickbacks of Rs 200 crore allegedly paid by Swan Telecom to A. Raja through the DMK-run Kalaignar TV. The CBI claimed the kickbacks amounted to illegal gratification in lieu of grant of 2G spectrum licences,” an official said.
“The CBI probe had revealed that telecom companies which were in the race for 2G allotments illegally transferred funds to these countries, following which we sent the LRs, but the investigation hit a dead end, as no response was received from these countries despite constant reminders.”
Why is getting a response difficult?
In most cases, the ED found that financial details and returns of the firms under the scanner were not available with the authorities in these countries, or they did not share the details, because it is not mandatory for them to send a response.
Second, the countries demanded that the investigation agency clearly mention a direct link between the proceeds of crime and the crime in its request, while seeking information. “They expect that we give them a direct link of the offence, which may not be possible during investigation, as we are looking at multiple possibilities at that time,” an officer said.
“To establish a money trail, we go through several links and it may not be possible to establish a link between proceeds of crime and offence at that point. This is where the LR request gets stuck.”
Unanswered LRs made the case fall?
Officials explained that the domestic investigation was completed on time, but since the LRs remained unanswered, it hurt the case overall. They however maintained that they would soon file an appeal in a higher court.
“We were completely dependent on the authorities abroad. A detailed response from these countries could have helped make the case strong as it constituted key evidence that would help establish the money trail in this case,” a lawyer explained.
“But since the crucial evidence lies abroad and it does not fall under our jurisdiction, we need to wait for a response. This may take years, and we may still not get the evidence,” he added.
“Also, only one query is answered in one LR. So even if we get a response, we need to file supplementary LRs for further queries,” he said.