Background
Chidambaram claimed her interactions with Sudipta Sen were through Mrs. Manoranjana Sinh. Saradha Realty India Ltd. paid Sinh’s TV business fees on her behalf. However, the ED argued that Chidambaram could not provide supporting documents for these payments. They did not issue any acknowledgement of payment. The prosecution also pointed to a statement by Naresh Balodia, Advocate for the Saradha Group, indicating Chidambaram’s participation in meetings on SEBI-related matters, with her expenses covered by the Saradha Group. The ED claimed that between June 11, 2010, and June 17, 2012, Rs. 1.32 crore was paid by the Saradha Group to Chidambaram without any formal agreement. Judge Mukhopadhyay examined whether the alleged offence warranted cognizance. He noted that Chidambaram, a senior advocate and tax consultant, provided legal services to Sudipta Sen, his companies, and Mrs. Manoranjana Sinh, receiving fees from June 2010 to June 2012. The court emphasised that whether the lack of a tax invoice or bill constitutes a service tax violation is for other authorities to investigate, not the ED. Ultimately, the court ruled that legal fees and expenses do not qualify as proceeds of crime. Judge Mukhopadhyay concluded that there was no prima facie case under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 against Nalini Chidambaram.
ApniLaw AI
Need the case law behind this point?
Ask ApniLaw AI in plain words. Every point of the answer shows the judgment paragraph or Act section behind it, with its page and paragraph number.
