Jayalalithaa DA case: Sasikala floated fabricated companies and deposited unaccounted cash

Chennai, Mar 18: On March 29th, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa will in the Supreme Court through her counsel respond to a host of allegations made by Karnataka which has challenged her acquittal in the disproportionate assets case.

B V Acharya, the special public prosecutor for Karnataka who was advancing arguments before the Supreme Court made several points to suggest to the Supreme Court that the acquittal needs to be reversed.

Among the various points raised by Acharya one was relating to the diversion of unaccounted money. He narrated to the Bench comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy that the co-accused in the case, Sasikala Natrajan, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran floated 52 companies most of them in one day with an intention of diverting unaccounted money.

How the money was diverted:
Acharya pointed out to the Bench that there were several fake companies that had been floated with an intention of diverting the unaccounted money.

This money was in turn used to purchase assets which were disproportionate in nature. Accounts had been opened in the Abhiramapuram branch of the Indian bank and there are at least 330 entries to show that amounts exceeding Rs 50,000 were deposited, Acharya also contended.

Money was taken to the banks in suitcases and deposited. There is enough evidence to show that all this was done at the insistence of Sasikala Natrajan.

Acharya also accused her of floating various companies through which they purchased properties. All this material has been carefully considered by the trial court, but the high court reversed the order of conviction without proper consideration, Acharya also argued.

He further argued that documents had been fabricated. Acharya repeatedly pointed out to a sum of Rs 14 crore which had been claimed by Jayalalithaa and others to be the subscription amount from the newspaper, Namathu MGR.

Documents had been created in a bid to show that the money that had been received was under the subscription scheme of the newspaper, Acharya also argued.

He also went on to state that the newspaper had no subscription scheme. Further he noted that it is hard to believe that such a huge amount had been raised through a newspaper which also did not have any advertisements.

IANS