Enforcement Directorate attaches Karti Chidambaram’s assets worth Rs 1.16 crore

Sleuths of Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached assets worth Rs 1.16 crore of former finance minister P Chidambaram son’s Karti Chidambaram and a firm allegedly linked to him in connection with money laundering probe in Aircel-Maxis deal on Monday.

The agency has accused Karti of receiving monetary compensation in lieu of favours granted by his father to multi-national companies during his tenure as Finance Minister.

In the Aircel-Maxis case, The agency has claimed that though the Aircel-Maxis FDI approval was for Rs 3,500 crore, the proposal was wrongly projected as an investment of Rs 180 crore.  

The ED in a press note after attaching the property accused the former financial minister of mislieading the CCEA to favour the Malaysian telecom. The ED said, “The FDI included indirect investments by way of trust issue of preference shares of $375 million, over Rs 1,650 crore, and this fact was concealed."

According to ED, it had issued a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach Karti’s assets.

The agency has  attached Karti’s assets in form of fixed deposits and balance in saving bank account amounting upto Rs 90 lakhs, fixed deposits amounting of Rs 26 lakhs in name of a firm Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited (ASCPL).

According to a ED sleuth the firm ASCPL is linked to Karti and the firm is controlled by him.

The ED has also alleged that the Karti had disposed off a property in Gurgaon and had closed certain bank accounts in order to frustrate the process of attachment under the PMLA.

According to an ED official the probe has also revealed that CMSPL, a company promoted by Karti and A Palaniappan, nephew of Chidambaram, had recieved a sum of $2lakh from Maxis group allegedly for legal compliance software.

The official further added that in the course of investigation they learnt that the software was designed only for use in India, with reference to various laws applicable in India and hence was of no use to a Malaysian company in Malaysia.

(With Agency inputs)