ED questions PWD minister Satyendar Jain in PMLA case

NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday questioned Delhi Health and Power Minister Satyendar Jain for the second time in connection with a money laundering case registered against him and others.

Officials said Jain arrived at the ED office here this morning for the second round of questioning.

He was first questioned in the case last week.

They said his statement was being recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the investigating officer of the case.

The PMLA case was registered by the ED in August last year on the basis of a CBI FIR.

The ED probe will focus if the minister and other accused in the case created illegal assets by laundering the alleged tainted funds.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint had said Jain could not explain the source of funds received by four companies in which he was a shareholder.

It had registered a case against him, his wife and four others on charges of money laundering.

The CBI has also questioned him in the case earlier.

It had said that Rs 4.63 crore was allegedly received through Prayas Info Solutions, Akinchan Developers, Managalyatan Projects and Indo-metal Impex Pvt Limited in 2015-16.

They had said Jain and his wife were allegedly holders of one-third of the shares in these companies during the period.

The CBI has alleged that Jain had control over these companies either in the form of being one of the directors and by holding one-third of shares of these companies in his name or in the names of his family members or others.

The probe agency had also claimed that these were shell firms used for parking money in the form of investments in equity shares in connivance with Kolkata-based shell companies.

“This apart, before becoming a public servant, he was allegedly involved in laundering Rs 11.78 crore during 201012 through these companies as well as other firms also based in New Delhi,” the CBI had said.

AAP had refuted the CBI’S allegations of Jain’s involvement in shell companies as “baseless”.