The Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC) on Tuesday dismissed the writ petitions filed by B Ramalinga Raju?s wife B Nandini Raju seeking to set aside the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and notices issued by the Adjudicating Authority set up under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While refusing to grant any relief sought by Nandini through her petition, the HC directed her to respond to the authority?s notice within 12 days. The HC also dismissed similar petitions filed by B Radha and B Jhansi Rani, the wives of Ramalinga Raju?s brothers B Ramaraju and Suryanarayan Raju, respectively, seeking the relief on similar grounds.
However, despite two notices being served on Raju and his brothers, no one turned up to represent them before the Delhi-based adjudicating authority. The authority had issued notices to Raju and his 131 associates in September this year on a complaint filed by ED seeking confirmation of its provisional order to attach their 280 properties.
While Raju and his brothers are yet to respond to the ED notices, their wives (Nandini, Radha and Jhansi) had moved the Andhra Pradesh HC after the PMLA Authority rejected their application to dismiss ED?s complaint on the grounds that it did not specify reasonable cause. While the HC threw out their argument and upheld the ED?s notice, it has granted them some more time to respond to it.
The rest of the defendants in the case, who had been seeking adjournments in the matter on some pretext or the other, have also moved Andhra Pradesh HC seeking additional time to file their response. The Adjudicating Authority?s bench headed by Chairman PK Misra lambasted the defendants for their deliberate attempt to mislead and delay proceedings by their disintegrated and staggering approach. The bench on Wednesday ordered that the hearing be proceeded ex-parte against the defendants who failed to file their response as per the scheduled time on the pretext of pending petitions in the Andhra Pradesh HC.
The bench also pointed that PMLA provides for a timeline of 150 days from the date of provisional attachment orders out of which more than 60 days have already passed and none of the defendants have filed their replies. The bench on Wednesday announced that at the end of 150th day, it will pronounce the orders irrespective of whether defendants have filed their response or not.
The ED had filed an 11,000-page complaint with the Adjudicating Authority establishing that the proceeds of crime through the Rs 7,800-crore fraud at Satyam Computer Services were invested to buy the 280-odd properties which it has provisionally attached. These properties are worth Rs 200 crore on paper, but their current market value is estimated to be about Rs 1,200 crore.
According to ED investigation, Raju along with other accused floated 327 firms to invest his white-collar crime proceeds.