Videocon Group laundered ₹60,000 crore in
name of developing overseas oil and gas
assets: ED
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday told the special PMLA
(Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court that Videocon Group had
laundered around ₹60,000 crore it had obtained from a consortium of banks
to develop its oil and gas assets in Mozambique, Brazil, Indonesia, Australia
and East Timor.
Special public prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves and an assistant director of ED
also sought a non-bailable warrant against entrepreneur Sachin Dev Duggal,
claiming that Videocon Group had entered into several “unexplained”
transactions with him, and the role of “nHoldings SA” in siphoning off the
proceeds of crime was required to be ascertained. The court, however,
rejected the plea.
About the money laundering charges, the court asked the agency to
approach the court concerned in Delhi since the ECIR (Enforcement Case
Information Report) was registered there.
ED has initiated the probe based on an FIR registered by the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) on June 23, 2020, against then CMD of Videocon
Group, Venugopal Dhoot, and some unknown officers of public sector and
private banks, for allegedly causing the financial loss to the consortium led
by State Bank of India.
The ED claimed that of the funds obtained through various credit facilities,
Videocon Group had diverted around $196.75 million for unintended
purposes. About $1,813 million was also routed to its overseas entities on the
pretext of payment of refund of export advances and loans, it said.
ED further said that Videocon Hydro Carbons Holding Limited (VHHL), the
overseas firm of Videocon Group, had availed $1,256 million from Standard
Charted Bank (SCB), London, till December 2013. This was partly paid from a
standby letter of credit (SBLC) facility and partly from the Mozambique
assets sale proceeds from 2012 to January 2014.
“The shareholding of Saurabh Dhoot (nephew of Venugopal) was diluted to
10% by way of issuing fresh shares to Shashi Duggal, mother of Sachin Dev
Duggal on November 8, 2008 and various other transactions witnessed by
Sachin Dev Duggal”, and therefore his presence before the ED was
necessary, it said.
Gonsalves pointed out that summons was issued to Duggal in January 2022,
but he sought time and later asked to appear on February 12. He, however,
did not appear claiming that he was not a resident in India and was a citizen
of the United Kingdom. Subsequently, summons was issued to him through
official channels but despite visiting India on a number of occasions, Duggal
did not appear before the investigators, he said.
When the court enquired about Duggal’s exact status, the ED officer said he
was a witness in the case.“From the submissions made by the assistant
director, ED, New Delhi, it is clear that Sachin Dev Duggal is not an accused
at the moment, but not responding to the summons. Therefore, straightway
a non-bailable warrant cannot be issued as contended by ED,” special judge
MG Deshpande said, while rejecting ED’s plea.
Besides, the court said, the CBI had registered the FIR in Delhi while ED had
registered the ECIR in Delhi and therefore, ED should move the special
PMLA court concerned at the national capital for necessary orders.
“Instead of approaching the designated special courts in Delhi, invoking
jurisdiction of this court for the prayers made in this application is not
justified,” the court said.
CBI claimed that its preliminary enquiry had revealed that in April 2012, the
consortium had sanctioned a SBLC facility of $2,773.6 million to VHHL for
appraisal and development of their overseas oil and gas assets in
Mozambique, Brazil and Indonesia and other funding requirements in
relation to those assets and for refinancing the existing facilities.
Of the $2,773.6 million, about $1,103 million was refinanced which included
an outstanding of $400 million from SCB, which had the first charge over
Videocon Industries Limited (VIL’s) oil and gas assets abroad