The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached fresh assets, valued at over Rs 177 crore, in connection with its money laundering probe in NSEL case. The agency said in an official statement that it has issued a provisional order for attachment of “ten immovable properties having a market value of Rs 177.33 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the case of NSEL''.
“The said properties are controlled by Surender Gupta of P D Agro Processors Pvt Ltd and Dunar Foods Ltd, a major defaulter of NSEL.”
With this order, the total attachment of assets in this case stands at Rs 2,890 crore. Describing its probe, the ED said the company: “P D Agro Processors Pvt Ltd has fraudulently obtained huge funds from NSEL by trading on the exchange platform against non-existent/fictitious sale of their commodity, which is paddy/rice.
The money trail has revealed that a huge chunk of proceeds of crime has been transferred to Ms Dunar Foods Ltd, a sister concern of P D Agro Processors Pvt Ltd.”
The Enforcement Directorate, along with the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police, had registered a criminal case in 2013 under the PMLA to probe NSEL and others associated with it. The agency alleged that the accused persons in the said case hatched a criminal conspiracy to defraud investors, induced them to trade on the platform of NSEL, created forged documents like bogus warehouse receipts, falsified accounts and thereby committed criminal breach of trust against about 13,000 investors to the tune of Rs 5,600 crore.
It had in March, 2015 also filed a 20,000-page charge sheet against NSEL and 67 others in a court here alleging that the NSEL funds were laundered and “illegally ploughed into purchase of private properties''.
NSEL’s payment troubles started after it was ordered by the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) in July 2013 to suspend spot trade in most of its contracts due to suspected trading violations. The exchange could not settle the outstanding trades, leading to investigations by the police and regulators to find out whether the exchange had defrauded traders by not enforcing rules requiring sufficient collateral to be set aside.