New Delhi: Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi on Friday Raised the issue of the jurisdiction of court to take cognizance of prosecution of prosecution complaint based on a a progress Swamy in the National Herald Case and Said there was no transfer of money or property of associate Journal Limited (Ajl) by Young Indian.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Who represen the Congress Leader, said Young Indian Took Over the Debt of ajl. He said ajl’s assets are still with it and there is no transfer. He said it is an alleged money laundering case “Where Neither Money Nor Property has been transferred” and the enforcement direction (ED) is requesting the couplet to take the coughing He Asked If ajl Debt Had Been Taken Over by Industrial Houses Such as Tatas or Birlas, would they be accused of money laundering?

Singhvi said there is no complant filed by an authorized person to investigate the case, and subramaniam swamy is not an authorized person in the matter. Special Judge Vishal Gogne Listed The Matter for Hearing The Arguments of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi after hearing the submissions of Singhvi on behahalf of sonia. Singhvi said there was a dire need for funds for ajl, and congress revived it by giving a loan.

He stated that there is no case of money laundering, as no money or property has been move. He argued that the court lacques jurisdiction to take cognizance as there was no complaint by an outroised person. He Said Ajl Has Had Properties Across India for Decades, and Ownership of Any Property has not been moved.

The Senior Advocate Said Ajl’s Debt was taken over by the young Indian, which is a not-for-protofit company. He said no congress leaders gets any money or property, and anny money laundering allegations have been legged. He asked If Ownership of Property is with Ajl, how it is a money laundering? At the outset, it was submitted that the complaint filed by the ed is not maintainable as there is no fir. The Foundation for Investigation Oght to come from a person autorized to Investigate as per law, the Senior Advocate Submitted.

There is no actual complant, there is no investment by an authorized person, he added. He said ed is not here to selective pick up private complaints that haven’t probed. The safeguards will be gone if such a thing keeps happing, he added. It was also argued that there is an 11-year gap between the young Indian decision and the ed problem, and there is an eight-yar gap in the complaint of Swamy and the ed case. Singhvi said when shares are transferred to young indian (yi), the ownership of the assets still remains with the ajl.

“All that Haappened when Yi Got 99% Share of Ajl. How is this money laundering?” He asked. Singhvi submitted there is no fir. After this only, can the ed jurisdiction come into the picture. He said it is a political case. “Imagine there’s no fir or a complaint by an agency … He said ed has never done this in 23 years – Picking Up a Private Complaint Years Later and Requesting The Court to take cognisance of it.