ED Files Prosecution Complaint Against V Senthil Balaji and Others for Money Laundering in ‘Cash for Jobs Scam’ Case

More Articles

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed a Prosecution Complaint before the Special Court in Chennai against V Senthil Balaji, the then Transport Minister of Tamil Nadu, for money laundering in connection with the ‘Cash for Jobs Scam’ in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai). The Prosecution Complaint submitted by the ED on August 16, 2023, has been taken up by the Hon’ble Special Court in Chennai. 

The ED launched a money laundering probe based on three FIRs filed by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) in Chennai in the ‘Cash for Jobs Scam,’ in which three chargesheets were submitted, with V. Senthil Balaji named as the primary culprit. 

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 16.05.2023, had directed Tamil Nadu State Police to further investigate and file a supplementary chargesheet within 2 months; and allowed ED to proceed with its investigation lifting the stay on investigation vide Hon’ble Madras High Court order dated 01.09.2022. 

The ED investigation revealed that, by abusing his official capacity, V Senthil Balaji, the then Transport Minister, along with his brother RV Ashok Kumar and personal assistants B Shanmugam and M Karthikeyan, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the then Managing Directors of State Transport Undertakings (STUs) and other officers of transport corporations and obtained illegal gratification from candidates in order to recruit them as drivers, conductors, Junior Tradesmen, Junio, and others. 

During the ED inquiry, bank statement analysis revealed that the accused V Senthil Balaji and his wife S Meghala had large cash deposits in their bank accounts. Furthermore, the ED has gathered damning evidence revealing the use of criminal profits and establishing the linkage and mode of operation of the “Cash for Jobs Scam.” 

During the course of the inquiry, V Senthil Balaji was faced with damning evidence, but he failed to refute it and give any logical explanation; instead, he remained uncooperative and evasive throughout the proceedings.

- Advertisement -spot_imgspot_img

Latest

error: Content is protected !!