The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday informed the Kerala High Court that an investigation and analysis of the evidence, including the digital ones collected so far, have clearly established the involvement of former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister M. Sivasankar in the alleged LIFE Mission money laundering case.
Opposing the bail plea of Mr. Sivasankar, Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), South, R. Sankaranarayanan submitted that Mr. Sivasankar had his interest in the upfront commission earned from Unitac Builders and Developers, run by Santhosh Eappen, which had undertaken the construction of houses under the LIFE Mission project. The allegations against Mr. Sivasankar were “rooted to the kickbacks received from Santhosh Eappen”. In fact, Mr. Eappen had admitted to having paid upfront commission to procure the contract in the LIFE Mission project.
Wider ramifications
To a query by the court, the ASGI further submitted that the gold smuggling case and the LIFE Mission related money laundering case were distinct and independent of each other. While the first case related to the smuggling of gold through the diplomatic channel, the case registered by the ED was with respect to the bribe received in the implementation of the LIFE Mission project. In fact, a portion of the bribe was converted into foreign currency and taken through diplomatic channels to a foreign country. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the diplomatic gold smuggling case and the money laundering case were not the same. The ED had registered the case for illegally accepting AED 10 lakh from UAE humanitarian body UAE Red Crescent for executing the LIFE Mission project at Wadakkancherry, kickbacks received by Mr. Sivasankar and others, including officials of the UAE Consulate, Thiruvananthapuram, and smuggling out foreign currencies amounting to $1,90,000 to Cairo by concealment in handbag. It had wider ramifications and involved Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act violations.
He further submitted that Mr. Sivasankar was not cooperating with the investigation. Moreover, granting him bail at this stage would impede the ongoing investigation as there is a likelihood of his tampering with the evidence and influencing other witnesses. Besides, the possibility of the petitioner committing the money laundering offence again by concealing the proceeds of crime or by projecting it as untainted money was very high.
