Satyam case: ED seeks prosecution of Raju, others

Our Bureau Hyderabad | Updated on March 12, 2018

B. Ramalinga Raju

Nearly four years after Satyam Computer Services collapsed, the Directorate of Enforcement has filed a complaint in the CBI special court for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The ED seeks to prosecute former Satyam Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju, 46 others (including the 10 accused in the CBI charge-sheet) and 166 companies, including the tainted company itself.

It has already attached 350 properties worth about Rs 1,075 crore and taken possession of most of such properties.

In addition to the accused mentioned in the CBI chargesheet, the ED added directors in the front companies, “who are none other than relatives and associates of Raju.”

The 21st Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been designated to try all of the offences in the Satyam fraud.

The Central agency has alleged that Ramalinga Raju conspired with others accused to inflate the numbers of the company continuously during 2001-08 to project a rosy picture, to keep the shares overvalued and entice small investors to buy shares.

3 chargesheets

Citing the three chargesheets filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in this case, the ED said some of the Sections (467, 420 and 471) of Indian Penal Code were scheduled offences under the PMLA.

“Our investigation found that Ramalinga Raju and others derived money from sale or pledge of inflated shares of Satyam. They also received bonus shares, shares under Employee Stock Option Schemes and received dividends on the inflated shares,” it alleged.

Raju, his relatives and associates floated 327 front companies to “layer the proceeds of the crime”. “They accused purchased movable and immovable properties on their names and on the name of the front companies,” it alleged.

They also resorted to inter-connected transactions to ensure that crime proceeds were distanced from its original beneficiaries and laundered the said proceeds under the cover of the corporate veil, with an ulterior motive to project the properties so acquired as untainted ones, the ED said in its plaint.

“The investigation is still going on in India and abroad for further identification of proceeds of crime,” it informed the court.


Published on October 28, 2013

Follow us on Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Linkedin. You can also download our Android App or IOS App.

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

You May Also Like