[Kodakara Black Money Heist] We cannot probe all aspects alleged by police in FIR: ED tells Kerala High Court

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot investigate all aspects and allegations in a first information report (FIR) registered by the police, the central agency told the Kerala High Court on Friday [Vinod Mathew Wilson v. Union of India & Ors.].The Court agreed with the submissions put forth by the ED and observed that unlike other investigating agencies ED cannot investigate on matters unless the same is registered as a scheduled offence.Scheduled offences are the acts listed in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) that are derived from various legislations. These acts are also referred to as predicate offences, as they constitute the basis for the commission of money laundering offences.The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the State President of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Vinod Mathew Wilson raising concerns about the probe into the 2021 Kodakara money heist which allegedly involves Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State President, K SurendranWhen the case was heard on Friday by a bench of Justices P Gopinath and Syam Kumar VM, counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted that the agency has already been looking into the offence of money laundering which had arisen out of the scheduled offence of dacoity and had examined the persons involved to trace the proceeds of crime.The counsel for ED also submitted that it could not investigate all the aspects that the police was alleging in the FIR."The petitioner (Wilson) is coming and making submission that there are allegations against numerous persons. In a case there will be many allegations. We cannot investigate into all the aspects that the police is alleging in the FIR because the predicate scheduled offence is dacoity," the counsel submitted..The Bench agreed and observed that the ED is only responsible for investigating the offence of money laundering under the PMLA."The ED's duty under the PMLA is only to attach or recover proceeds of crime to the government i.e. to forfeit assets to the government which are created using proceeds of crime," Justice Gopinath orally remarked.The Court after hearing the parties reserved its verdict in the matter..In his PIL, Wilson raised concerns about the probe into the 2021 Kodakara black money heist which allegedly involved K Surendran.He contended that in the FIR filed by the police, there were remarks against the BJP State President's involvement in the hawala transactions which were not being investigated by the ED.The hawala system can be understood as an informal and illegal channel for transferring funds from one location to another..Wilson submitted that offences against Surendran would also be punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sought action from the Central government and National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the UAPA and NIA Act..The counsel for the ED, the Central government and the NIA filed their respective statements and argued that the PIL was not maintainable as the petition filed was politically motivated.They argued that the Wilson had no right to appear in the present PIL which is connected to a criminal matter as he neither has any connection to the alleged crime nor did he seek to enforce any fundamental rights of the public.The petitioner was represented by advocates Manu Ramachandran, K Kiranlal, TS Sarath, R Rajesh, Sameer M Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Jothisha K A and Shifana M.Central Government Counsel Jaishankar V Nair appeared for the ED.Senior Panel Counsel TC Krishna appeared for the Central government and NIA. .What Kerala High Court said on AAP versus BJP 'slugfest'