ED report claims 'money laundering' part of Muda scam

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The fourteen sites (plots) allotted to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi B M in Mysuru upmarket were 'illegally allotted' and there was a money laundering attempt, reveals the ED investigation into the Muda site allotment case. The Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued by the Enforcement Directorate gave a detailed picture of the modus operandi to use these 14 sites for money laundering purpose. Activist Snehamayi Krishna, who is a petitioner in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (Muda) case shared the copy of PAO with PTI.

The 104-page order explained that the 'illegal allotment' was done under the influence. The ED said Parvathi returned these 14 sites subsequent to initiation of the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. "The illegal allotment of sites is not a single occurrence. There is a deep-rooted nexus between Muda officers /officials and real estate businessmen/influential persons. Large number of illegal allotments were made by Muda officers/officials against cash, immovable properties, vehicles etc," the ED said. The modus operandi followed was to make illegal allotments to ineligible persons who are front or dummy, according to the agency.

It further said that these sites were subsequently projected as untainted, that is, having been obtained as compensation for land acquired by Muda. "Further, these illegally allotted sites are being sold in order to obfuscate their true origin i.e. proceeds of crime and to frustrate proceedings under PMLA, 2002. The resultant sale consideration obtained is being projected as untainted income from real estate business," the report explained. The Muda allotted 14 sites to Parvathi against the acquisition of her three acres and 16 guntas of agriculture land in Kesare village.

Siddaramaiah's brother-in-law, Mallikarjuna Swamy, had gifted the land to his sister Parvathi. Swamy told ED that he had visited the land in Kesare with owner J Devaraju during the year 2003 before purchasing it and claimed there was no development work on the land. However, when confronted with the satellite imagery which indicated development work on the land during year 2001, 2002 and 2003, he could not provide any plausible explanation for the same, the ED order said.