NEW DELHI (Gurpreet Singh) — In the wake of a significant legal blow to the central probe agencies, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday maintained that its investigation into the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case remains a “standalone” probe. This statement follows the Rouse Avenue Court’s decision earlier today to discharge former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the primary case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The ED’s case, registered in August 2022, is legally tied to the CBI’s FIR as a “predicate offence.” Under current legal precedents established by the Supreme Court in the Vijay Madanlal (2022) case, a money laundering charge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) typically ceases if the accused is acquitted of the original scheduled offence. However, ED officials on Friday argued that their evidence is distinct from the CBI’s and that the process of “laundering, layering, and placing” the alleged proceeds of crime has been documented in detail within their own eight chargesheets.
The agency is banking on the possibility of a legal shift, noting that the Supreme Court is currently re-examining whether money laundering should be delinked from the predicate offence. ED officials emphasized that the trial court has not yet ruled on the specific merits of the money laundering case. They assert that their findings—which describe Arvind Kejriwal as the “kingpin and key conspirator”—are built on credible testimonials and financial tracking that warrant independent judicial consideration regardless of the CBI case’s outcome.
Arvind Kejriwal, who broke down in tears following his discharge in the CBI case, has vehemently dismissed the allegations. He characterized the years-long investigation as the “biggest political conspiracy” in the history of independent India, aimed at dismantling the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). While the ED has arrested 18 individuals and named 40 entities in its pursuit of the alleged “scam,” the legal future of these proceedings now rests on whether the judiciary maintains the tether between the CBI’s failed conspiracy narrative and the ED’s financial claims
