Mumbai: ED Files Chargesheet Against Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal; Names Wife, Four Others

Mumbai: The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday submitted a prosecution complaint against Naresh Goyal, founder of the grounded airline Jet Airways, his wife Anita and four companies for money laundering after allegedly defrauding Canara Bank to the tune of ₹538 crore.

The special court is likely to hear the agency on cognisance of the complaint filed by ED to examine prima facie evidence of the money laundering as alleged by the agency.

Goyal, 74 was arrested on the night of September 1 by the agency in connection with the money laundering probe into the allegation that he and the airline had defrauded Canara Bank to the tune of ₹538 crore. 

The ED’s case is based on a May 3 FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Jet Airways (India) Limited (JIL) founder Goyal, his wife Anita, former company executive Gaurang Ananda Shetty and unknown public servants and private persons in connection with the alleged fraud at Canara Bank.

ED's claims

ED after his arrest had claimed that Jet Airways had taken a loan from a consortium of 10 banks to meet the operational expenditure between 2011-12 and 2018-19. However, out of the total loan ₹6,000 is still outstanding. The agency had claimed that a forensic audit revealed that ₹1,152 crores were diverted in the guise of consultancy and professional fees and ₹2,547.83 crore were diverted to a sister concern - Jet Lite Limited (JLL) to clear its loan. The money advanced to JLL was subsequently written off from the books of Jet Airways.

ED in its first plea after Goyal arrest, filed to seek his custody, had claimed, “While Naresh Goyal was the chairman of Jet Airways, the company (JIL) diverted funds by way of making advances to Jet Lite Limited (JLL), the subsidiary of JIL, worth ₹2547.83 crore and subsequently writing off the same. It was also observed that JIL has paid various expenses amounting to ₹403.27 crore, which is not in tune with the GSA Agreement, as the expenses of General Selling Agents (GSA) were to be borne by GSAs themselves and not by JIL.”

ED had also claimed that substantial amount was also used to pay salary and operational expenses of his daughter's firm.