The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has informed the Special Court considering the Karuvannur Service Cooperative Bank scam that the claims of the depositors over the property of accused that were attached by the agency could be considered.
The ED filed a counter-affidavit in a petition filed by one Mahadevan, who had deposited Rs. 33.27 lakh in the bank. The petitioner informed the court that he could not withdraw the deposited money as the bank had collapsed due to the act of the accused.
The BJP has pitch-forked the Karuvannur issue during its run-up to the April 26 polls with the Prime Minister Narendra Modi referring to it more than one during his campaign meetings. Mr. Modi had repeatedly flagged the issue during the recent public meetings in the State, especially in Thrissur, the district where the bank is located.
The ED had questioned a few prominent CPI (M) leaders in connection with the scam.
The ED informed the court that the investigations had revealed that the deposits of the individuals in the bank were diverted to the accused, by way of illegal loans. Loans were granted to the accused by flouting the bylaws and other rules, which resulted in defaulting of the loans. This led to a situation where the bank failed to release the deposits to the depositors, it informed the court.
The investigation agency informed the Special Court that it could consider the claims for the restoration of the property even during the course of the trial as specified in the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules 2016. The Rule 3A of the Rules states that such claims could be considered after framing the charge, it informed the court.
The Adjudicating Authority of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, New Delhi, had confirmed the provisional attachment of various immovable properties including the bank accounts of the various accused, the ED noted.
The agency informed the court that the petitioner had suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the money laundering by the accused. If the accused had not acquired the proceeds of crime through illegal loan, the petitioner could have realised his deposit in time.
