Delhi High Court Asks Trial Court To Defer Arguments On Charge In Money Laundering Cases Against Karti Chidambaram

The Delhi High Court has asked the trial court to defer arguments on charge in the money laundering cases related to Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases registered against Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice on Chidambaram's plea for deferring framing of charges against him in the money laundering cases unless charges were framed in the scheduled offences i.e. CBI FIRs.

The Court issued notice on the plea which raises the question as to whether the framing of charge under PMLA should be deferred or stayed until the charges are finalized for the predicate or scheduled offence.

It is Chidambaram's case that proceedings in the money laundering offence in the two cases must not proceed to the next stage until and unless the next stage has been completed in the scheduled offence.

On the other hand, ED relied on a recent Supreme Court order of April 04 in the case of S. Martin wherein interim directions were issued that the trial of the scheduled offence as also under the PMLA shall go on, subject to the rider that no judgment should be pronounced.

It was submitted by ED that 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.

The Court observed that existence of scheduled offence and proceeds of crime being the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence are sine qua non for not only initiating prosecution under PMLA but also for continuation thereof.

It noted that in S. Martin case, the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the conclusion of trial in scheduled offence is necessary for framing of charge whereas Chidambaram was just praying that framing of charge in PMLA case be kept in abeyance till the charges were finalised in the case relating to predicate offence.

“As is evident from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra), there is emphasis on the words “discharge/acquitted” of the scheduled offence. That being so, 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.

Observing that the matter requires consideration, the Court issued notice on the plea and listed the case for hearing on May 29.

“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 Court said.

Chidambaram has challenged the trial court orders dismissing his applications seeking deferment of arguments on the charges against him.

The Enforcement Directorate had registered the money laundering case relating to the alleged Chinese visa scam against Karti Chidambaram, S. Bhaskararaman and Vikas Makharia. The case concerns allegation of issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in the year 2011 when P Chidambaram, Karti Chidambaram's father, was the home minister.

In the second case, it has been alleged that a company indirectly controlled by Karti received a consultancy fee of `26 lakh from Aircel Televentures Ltd (ATL) in the contemporaneous period of the FIPB approval being given to the Aircel-Maxis deal.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Akshat Gupta, Mr. Sidak Singh Anand, Mr. Shrey Nautiyal and Ms. Madhusruthi N. Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kunal Kochhar, Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Daanish Abbasi, Advocates

Title: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM v. ED & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 440

Click here to read order