Justice Khanna to ASG : Mr Raju, you cannot create a predicate offence in a PMLA case. We cannot go on an assumption. If it (allegation of bribe) is not there in the predicate offence, then you will be in difficulty. Whatever protection is there in law has to be fully extended and there cannot be any exception
Singhvi : The said allegation was not even made part of the ED complaint. How many times will a person be believed before trial?
Singhvi: It is very graphic how he (Dinesh Arora) was arrested, then his statements changed ... His somersaults would make a trapeze artist blush
Court: What is pointed out is a modification of policy with regard to the airport (licence). Is it not part of the main offence ...?
Singhvi: That's all
Singhvi : In September 7 and April 9 statements, Dinesh Arora (approver) said he denied receiving any amount. On eight dates he did not make allegations. The allegation was made for first time on 14 August, a year later.
Singhvi : The allegation of 220 crore bribe is not even part of the predicate offence . Without predicate offence, this 220 is nothing . I am not on the amount, I'm on the concept.
Singhvi : You can't keep me behind the bars with 500 witnesses and 50,000 documents in the interim when the trial is to start and when there is no evidence linking me.
Singhvi : The foundation of the charge does not show any connection with me. There is no evidence to show I interfered to give license to IndoSpirits.
Singhvi : My argument is that the very charge has to have a connection with my act, that act causing a benefit to someone, and then some throwback to me, generation, possession etc...there is no chain..
Singhvi : They say since my policy enabled a company to make profits, I am involved. They have not found any money being given to me or my family members. So now they say the profits generated by one company is the proceeds of the crime. This is far fetched.
Justice Khanna : They are not saying that money has come to you. They are saying because of your involvement, you have assisted in the proceeds of crime.
Singhvi : Admittedly, there is no money trail found against me. What they say is that a company generated profits and since it is the policy which was created by me which helped the company, I am involved. That is too far fetched.
Singhvi : There is no allegation in the CBI predicate offence, if there is no predicate offence, ED can't be there.
Singhvi : Here the allegation is that the very policy is made to defraud. The policy was made in a transparent manner after deliberations by the committees and approved by the then LG.
Singhvi : The allegations with respect to IndoSpirits is that the petitioner pressurised excise officials to give licence to IndoSpirit. There is no evidence to that effect. The file shows he directed to act as per the rules.
Singhvi : There is nothing to show petitioner asked to give license to Indospirts violating the law.