PMLA case: Ex-ICICI CEO Chanda Kochhar appears before court
The ED had arrested Deepak Kochhar in September 2020 after it filed a criminal case for money laundering based on an FIR registered by the CBI against the Kochhars, Dhoot and others.
Mumbai: Former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar appeared before a special PMLA court here on Friday in connection with the ICICI Bank-Videocon money laundering case.
The special court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) had on January 30 summoned Chanda Kochhar, her husband Deepak Kochhar, Videocon Group promoter Venugopal Dhoot and other accused in the case after taking cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) charge sheet.
Chanda Kochhar appeared before the special Judge A A Nandgoankar and filed a bail application through her lawyer Vijay Agarwal.
The court asked the ED to file its reply on her bail application.
The ED had arrested Deepak Kochhar in September 2020 after it filed a criminal case for money laundering based on an FIR registered by the CBI against the Kochhars, Dhoot and others.
The ED has alleged that Rs 64 crore, out of a loan amount of Rs 300 crore sanctioned by a committee of ICICI Bank headed by Chanda Kochhar to Videocon International Electronics Limited, was transferred to Nupower Renewables Pvt Ltd (NRPL) by Videocon Industries on September 8, 2009, a day after the disbursement of loan.
NRPL was earlier known as Nupower Renewables Limited (NRL) and is owned by Deepak Kochhar, the ED said.
Taking cognisance of the charge sheet, Judge A A Nandgoankar had observed, “After going through the submissions, written complaints and statements recorded under PMLA, it appears that Chanda Kochhar had misused her official position in granting loan to accused Dhoot and/or Videocon group companies.”
“And (it appears) she got illegal gratification/undue advantage through her husband…through various companies for siphoning off money and proceeds of crime,” the court had said.
The material produced by the ED constitutes the commission of offence, and it is “sufficient to proceed against the accused persons”, the court had said.
