A Delhi court has issued a summons to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Rahul Navin, citing the agency’s inability to furnish clear and legible copies of critical evidentiary documents to defendants in an ongoing case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Presiding over the matter, Additional Sessions Judge Aparna Swami mandated this directive following a submission by ED Deputy Director Dipin Goyal, who asserted that the documents provided represented the best available copies in the department’s possession.
“Considering the submissions made and the protracted delay in furnishing legible copies, as documented in the order sheets dated 28.03.2024, this court finds it imperative to direct the Director of ED, along with the Investigating Officer, to appear before the court and provide a written report on the status of the documents to be supplied to the accused,” stated the judge in the order dated January 25. The case is slated for its next hearing on March 26.
The case in question stems from a prosecution complaint filed by the ED against individuals Gajendra Nagpal, Sonia Nagpal, Ram Mohan Gupta, and several corporate entities, including Unickon Securities Pvt Ltd, Unickon Fincap Pvt Ltd, Unickon Financial Intermediaries Pvt Ltd, Unickon Real Estate Pvt Ltd, and i360 Staffing and Training Solutions Pvt Ltd. The charges pertain to financial misconduct and fraudulent activities tied to violations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regulations.
Unickon Securities, a stockbroker and depository participant registered with the Central Depository Services Limited (CDSL), is accused of orchestrating an extensive investor fraud. According to the ED, “Since January 2014, approximately 4,156 investors lodged complaints with SEBI regarding non-receipt of their funds and securities. A subsequent inquiry by SEBI identified numerous infractions of the SEBI Act, Rules, and Regulations. Consequently, the ED launched an investigation into the fraudulent misappropriation of Rs. 88 crore, committed against investors, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.”
The prosecution complaint, initially filed in 2022 before the Patiala House Court, remains in the preliminary stage of document scrutiny. The court’s decision to summon the ED Director underscores the gravity of procedural inefficiencies that impede the expeditious adjudication of financial fraud cases. Such delays in furnishing essential legal documents pose significant impediments to the accused in formulating an adequate defense.
This development highlights the broader institutional challenges within regulatory enforcement mechanisms and raises pertinent questions regarding the efficacy of investigative agencies in upholding procedural fairness. The upcoming March 26 hearing is expected to determine the trajectory of compliance with judicial directives concerning the outstanding documentation.
