ED requests approval to support anti-corruption division in case of Tamil Nadu minister

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) insisted on helping the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) investigate a case involving disproportionate assets against Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan on Wednesday, days after conducting raids on the homes of DMK minister K. Ponmudy and his MP son.

There should be no public mistrust in the State Agency handling the case, especially given that the accused is a currently serving minister in Tamil Nadu, according to ED Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh, who spoke for the ED in court. The Principal District Judge determined that all parties to the plea of the investigation agency would be heard on August 2.

In 2006, when the DMK was in office, DVAC filed a complaint against minister Anitha Radhakrishnan. In the years 2001 to 2006, Anitha served as the housing board’s minister.

Anitha and his family were accused of acquiring disproportionate assets totaling Rs 4.90 crore in the DVAC’s case. The ED claimed to have significant material relevant to the case during the case hearing in District judge on April 18 and presented the judge with a petition to allow the agency to help DVAC in the investigation.

Anandha Ramakrishnan and Anandha Maheshwaran, Anitha Radhakrishnan’s sons, appeared in court.

The DVAC had already filed an objection, arguing that 80 per cent of the investigation is already complete, and involving the ED at this stage would lead to a fresh probe from the beginning. On Wednesday, the counsel representing Anitha Radhakrishnan’s sons questioned the ED’s reason for interfering with the trial.

The ED argued in its appeal that it should be permitted to participate in the inquiry in the public interest. Additionally, it was claimed that the accused employed a certain operating procedure to inject unexplained funds into partner companies run by family members, which were then used to buy immovable properties.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the ED had already attached properties worth Rs 2.6 crore that belonged to the minister in February 2022.

The minister argued before the court that the ED had neglected to take into account that Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made a part of scheduled offences under PMLA in June 2009, whereas the DVAC had filed the case in 2006. As a result, the Madras High Court Division Bench issued an interim stay, prohibiting the ED from further investigation.