Delhi High Court orders PMLA court to defer proceedings against Karti Chidambaram in Chinese visa, Aircel-Maxis cases

The Delhi High Court recently ordered the trial court to defer its hearing on arguments on charge in the money laundering cases registered against Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Karti Chidambaram in relation to Chinese visa scam and Aircel-Maxis case..Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the trial court to defer the hearing to a date after May 29, 2025 when the High Court will examine the case again.The trial court was originally scheduled to hear the matter on April 15. "In my view, the matter requires consideration... In the meanwhile, learned Special Judge is directed to defer the arguments on charge to a date subsequent to the date fixed by this Court," the High Court ordered. .Chidambaram moved the High Court against a March 28 order of the trial court dismissing his application for deferment of arguments on charge in the money laundering cases related to alleged Chinese Visa scam and the Aircel-Maxis deal.The ED is probing a money laundering case against Karti Chidambaram and others over the allegation that there were irregularities in the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in 2011. His father, P Chidambaram was the Union Home Minister during the relevant period. The Aircel-Maxis case relates to irregularities in granting Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance. It has been alleged that this was done in 2006 when P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister and there was quid pro quo. .Karti Chidambaram told the High Cpurt that in the prosecution for the predicate offence, the case has not reached the stage of consideration of the charge. Yet, the judge had fixed April 15 as the date for hearing arguments on the charge in the money laundering case. His lawyers argued that if he is discharged in the predicate offence, the money laundering offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot proceed. If the trial court proceeds further in the PMLA case to frame charge and later on the petitioner is discharged for the predicate offence, such a paradoxical result would be contrary to the statutory framework of the PMLA, it was stated. However, the ED argued that the trial in both the cases is independent of each other and therefore, there is no embargo in the trial court proceeding further to consider the question of framing of charge..After considering the case, the Court observed that the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence is sine qua non for not only initiating prosecution under PMLA but also for its continuation. "Prima facie, the discharge of the petitioner in the predicate offence would certainly have bearing on the trial of the PMLA case inasmuch as in case of discharge, there can be no offence of money laundering against him," the Court said. Therefore, it issued notice to the ED and asked the trial court to defer its hearing. .Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra along with advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Akshat Gupta, Sidak Singh Anand, Shrey Nautiyal and Madhusruthi N appeared for Karti Chidambaram. ED was represented by its Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani as well as advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Kunal Kochhar, Kanishk Maurya and Daanish Abbasi. .[Read Order]