Sonia Gandhi Says National Herald Case Political, No Transfer Of Money Or Property Of AJL

New Delhi: Congress leader Sonia Gandhi said that on Friday, the Court’s judicial power was based on a special complaint in the National Herald case, based on BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, and Association Limited (AJL) ‘s Young Indian was not transferred by Young Indian.

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the congress leader, said that Young Indian took over Ajl’s debt. He said that AJL’s assets were still with him and that he was not transferred. Authority, this “neither the money nor the property is not transferred” and the Executive Directorate (ED) claimed that the court claimed to be aware of the participants claimed that the case of money laundering, he said. He asked if the AJL debt is inherited by industrial houses such as tatas or unit, will they be accused of laundering money? Singhvi said that there was no complaint by an authorized person to investigate the case and that subrameniam Swamy was not an authorized person. Special Judge Vishal Gogne listed Singhvi’s presentations on the name of Sonia Gandhi after hearing the arguments of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

Singhvi said he needed a terrible fund for AJL and revived the Congress by lending. He said that there was no money laundering in money because money or property was not transported. The authority argued that the court does not have the judicial authority to undertake cognition because there was no complaint by a authorized person. He said that AJL had property in India for decades and that any property has not moved. Senior lawyer, AJL’s debt was taken over by the young Indian company, a non -profit company, he said.

He said that no congress leader has received money or property, and that the allegations of money laundering were still levels. He asked if the property of the property was with Ajl, how to launder money? Initially, it was stated that the complaint made by ED could not be maintained because there was no fir. The senior lawyer should come from a person who has the authority to investigate according to the law. There is no real complaint, no investigation by an authorized person, added. He said ED was not to select unquestioned special complaints here. The authority added that if such a thing continues to be, the guards will go.

It was also claimed that there was an 11 -year gap between the young Indian decision and the ED investigation and that there was an eight -year gap in the Swamy and Ed case. Singhvi said that when the stocks were transferred to Young Indian (YI), the ownership of the assets is still with Ajl. “Yi, 99% of AJL took. he asked. Singhvi, there was no fir. Only after that, ED judicial authority can enter the picture, it is a political situation, he said.

“Imagine that an agency has no fires or complaints … We cannot have such speculations and assumptions,” he said. He said that ED had never done it in 23 years – after taking a special complaint and asked the court to realize it.