September 25, 2026 09:56 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Trouble for Gyanesh Kumar? Plea filed in Supreme Court seeking prosecution of CEC | Air India pilot suspended after failing alcohol test before Zurich-Delhi flight, weeks after marijuana case | 'Don't be selective, boycott all elections': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's blunt message to Opposition | 'Resign by tomorrow or face nationwide protest from October 2': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's fresh warning to Gyanesh Kumar | 'Locked' iPhone 17 at centre of mystery surrounding IIT Bombay student's death | 'Rahul Gandhi is devoid of wisdom and knowledge': BJP hits back over 'vote theft' claim | ‘How does anti-incumbency disappear?’: Rahul Gandhi targets Modi, Shah in fresh ‘vote chori’ attack, demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation | Opposition readies fresh impeachment push against Gyanesh Kumar over SIR report | ‘Resign in 48 hours or face nationwide agitation’: CJP’s ultimatum to Gyanesh Kumar over SIR row | IIT Bombay student’s parents begin hunger strike, demand arrest of officials
Manish Sisodia
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Delhi liquor scam: SC seeks proof against Manish Sisodia in money laundering case; hurls tough questions at ED, CBI

| @indiablooms | Oct 06, 2023, at 06:49 am

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two bail petitions filed by former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the alleged money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate linked to Delhi liquor policy scam, media reports said.

The Supreme Court said that the Enforcement Directorate court could not implicate Manish Sisodia in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi liquor scam, according to the reports.

The court said that Vijay Nair, the AAP communication chief and businessman, had involvement, but the probe agency has not been able to prove Manish Sisodia’s connection so far.

The court questioned how he could be brought under the Money Laundering Act since the money was not directed towards him, according to the media reports.

The apex court stated that if he was associated with a company, vicarious liability could be considered. Otherwise, the prosecution's case weakened. The court said that money laundering formed a distinct offence.

The court emphasized the need for the probe agency to establish a clear chain of financial transactions. It acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, given the covert nature of such activities, but stressed the importance of the agency's expertise in this matter.

The court raised questions about the specified amounts of Rs100 crore and Rs 30 crore, asking who provided these sums to the accused. It pointed out that multiple people could have made such payments, without direct links to the liquor policy.

The court sought the evidence supporting the allegations.

It noted that aside from Dinesh Arora's statement, there seemed to be a lack of additional corroborative evidence, casting a shadow over the completeness of the established chain.

The court said that policy changes, even if flawed, would not amount to a crime unless there was an element of financial offense.

It underscored that it was the involvement of money that transformed it into an offence.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.