Money Laundering Case: Mumbai PMLA Court Summons Former Religare Chairperson Rashmi Saluja, 4 Others In ₹179.54 Crore Probe

Mumbai, June 2: The special PMLA court on Tuesday issued a summons to Rashmi Saluja, former executive chairperson at Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) and non-executive chairperson at Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL), and four others, after taking cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last year.

The special judge, R.B. Rote, observed, “Considering the prosecution complaint, the statements of witnesses as well as accused, it prima facie appears that there are allegations of criminal conspiracy to falsely implicate the Burman family.”

ED had last year submitted a prosecution complaint for alleged money laundering to the tune of Rs 179.54 crore against Saluja, Nishant Singhal, former president and general counsel at REL, Nitin Aggarwal, former Group CEO, REL, Vaibhav Gawli, office assistant at Happy Tail Pet Café, and Pratap Venugopal, former retainer for REL and independent director at CHIL.

ED alleges unlawful gains through ESOPs

The ED’s counsel, Arvind Aghav, had submitted that Saluja, in collusion with Singhal and Aggarwal, used her position for making unlawful gains in the form of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) of CHIL, wherein she herself approved her own name along with the names of Singhal and Aggarwal for ESOPs of CHIL without discussion or prior approval of the board or management of both REL and CHIL.

Aghav also relied upon the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the petition filed by Saluja.

Saluja’s lawyer, Sudeep Pasbola, contested the ED’s claim and said that the court did not have jurisdiction.

Pasbola contended, “Grant of ESOPs was undertaken pursuant to recommendation of NRC, approval by the Board of Directors and approval by the shareholders. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of conspiracy or inducement qua the NRC, Board or shareholders, the very foundation of cheating collapses. As such, there is no offence of cheating made out against the accused. It is submitted that all actions and decisions made, including the grant of ESOPs, were in accordance with the company’s approved policy.”

Defence challenges allegations

Singhal’s lawyers, Subir Sarkar and Sumit Erande, contended that he was not a Key Managerial Personnel, a Director, or a member of the NRC, Board of M/s CHIL, or the Shareholders Committee.

Further, they argued that the decision to grant the ESOPs was taken collectively by all these entities and not by a single person.

Aggarwal’s lawyer, Sanjay Chadha, argued that ESOPs had been granted by following all mandatory and statutory norms and procedures at a fair market valuation, and there could be no question of illegal gain.

Meanwhile, Amit Desai, representing Venugopal, contended that Venugopal acted strictly on the instructions and with the full knowledge of REL and CHIL officials.

It was contended that he merely facilitated the obtaining of independent legal opinions from reputed experts in the ordinary course of professional practice and that the same did not constitute an offence.

It was further contended that Venugopal acted in good faith and within the contours of his professional responsibilities. It was also submitted that the allegations of quid pro quo and conflict of interest were completely baseless, as the amount of Rs 60 lakh received by him was his professional fee and could not be treated as an incriminating fact.

Court finds sufficient grounds to proceed

The court, however, refused to accept the contentions and noted that all the arguments had been raised before the High Court and were not accepted.

Besides, the court noted that the Supreme Court had also dismissed Saluja’s petitions.

“The role of all accused has been specifically mentioned in the prosecution complaint and it has been supported by the statement of accused No. 4 (Vaibhav Gawli) and statements of other witnesses,” the court said.

The court added that Venugopal’s role was not restricted to procuring legal opinions from two legal experts, as there were specific allegations of conspiracy between the accused. Subsequently, his name was recommended as Additional Non-Executive and Independent Director on the Board of M/s CHIL.

“Considering the allegations in the prosecution complaint, the statements of witnesses and accused, and the material on record, it prima facie reveals that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and to issue process against the accused,” the court said while taking cognisance of the complaint.

Prosecution case

According to the ED, on November 29, 2021, under Saluja, the pool of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) was expanded from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent.

A month later, on December 28, 2021, she proposed the grant of 2,27,11,327 shares of CHIL to herself and also to Singhal and Aggarwal. This, according to the ED, was equivalent to the expanded pool of 2.5 per cent of ESOPs.

The ED claimed that Saluja, in collusion with Singhal and Aggarwal, used her position for making unlawful gains in the form of ESOPs of CHIL, wherein she approved her own name along with the names of Singhal and Aggarwal for ESOPs of CHIL without discussion or prior approval of the board or management of both REL and CHIL.

Also Watch: