ED presents sanction order to prosecute P. Chidambaram in INX Media case in special court

New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has placed the prosecution sanction order received from the competent authority against senior Congress leader and former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in connection with the alleged INX Media money laundering case before the Special Rose Avenue Court in New Delhi, according to an official statement issued by the central anti-money laundering agency on Thursday.

The prosecution sanction order, which was obtained on February 10, 2026, “has been placed before the Special Rouse Avenue Court to expedite the trial in the case,” the ED statement said.

The ED had initiated an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, based on an FIR dated May 15, 2017, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against M/s INX Media Private Limited, M/s INX News Private Limited, Karti Chidambaram (P. Chidambaram’s son), and others for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 8, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the financial investigative agency, probe revealed that Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval was granted to the INX Media Private Limited during the tenure of P. Chidambaram as the Union Finance Minister.

“In consideration for granting and subsequently regularising FIPB approval, illegal gratification was demanded and received through entities beneficially owned or controlled by Karti Chidambaram,” the statement said.

The ED alleged that the illicit funds were routed through shell entities, including M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited (ASCPL) and associated companies under the direct or indirect control of Karti Chidambaram.

Investigation also revealed that the funds were layered through complex financial transactions across multiple jurisdictions without any genuine business activity and subsequently integrated through investments in companies such as M/s Vasan Health Care Private Limited and M/s AGS Health Care Private Limited, before being multiplied through share sales and overseas investments.

According to the ED, Karti Chidambaram and his close associates allegedly acted on behalf of P. Chidambaram, interacted with representatives of INX Media regarding FIPB approvals, and collected proceeds of crime arising from the alleged arrangement.

“The proceeds of crime were routed through shell companies incorporated for laundering purposes and utilised for deposits in bank accounts and investment in movable and immovable properties in India and abroad,” the ED statement added.

The total proceeds of crime in the case have been quantified at nearly Rs 65.88 crore.

The ED has provisionally attached assets worth Rs 53.93 crore through an order dated October 10, 2018, and a further Rs 11.04 crore through an attachment order dated March 31, 2023, both of which were subsequently confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the PMLA.

The financial investigative agency had earlier filed a charge sheet before the Rouse Avenue Court on June 1, 2020, where P. Chidambaram was arrayed as accused number 1 and Karti P. Chidambaram as accused number 7, along with eight other accused entities and individuals.

The Special PMLA Court took cognisance of the alleged offences on March 24, 2021.

A supplementary charge sheet was subsequently filed on December 16, 2024.

“The Enforcement Directorate has been making all efforts to fast track the trial in the case,” the statement said.

In November 2024, opposing P. Chidambaram’s plea seeking stay of trial proceedings in the INX Media money laundering case, the ED had submitted before the Delhi High Court that managing his son’s business interests could not be considered part of official responsibilities of a Union Finance Minister.

Before a bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, the ED’s special counsel contended that the allegations of money laundering were unrelated to Chidambaram’s official duties.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for Chidambaram said that the trial court should not have taken cognisance of the charge sheet without prior sanction, since he was holding public office at the time of the alleged offence.

With the grant of sanction now placed before the Special Court, the pending petitions would likely turn infructuous, and the accused may choose to institute fresh proceedings challenging the validity of the sanction order.

IANS