The ED’s case against P Chidambaram is that the former Union Minister created a web of shell companies and foreign accounts to route the alleged kickbacks received for the FIPB approval. In its affidavit submitted to the court, the ED has said two individuals were acting as agents of Chidambaram in creating this web of companies which allegedly had no business but were used to route the money from one company to another allegedly to make tracing of the money trail difficult for investigative agencies. It has claimed to have details on the same.

The ED has further said that Chidambaram and Karti allegedly held 17 foreign accounts through which the alleged kickbacks were laundered and invested in multiple properties across the globe, an accusation also levelled by the CBI. The ED has said the accounts and properties lie in Argentina, Austria, British Virgin Island, France, Greece, Spain, Monaco, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa and Sri Lanka. The ED affidavit states that the welter of evidence has been corroborated by the FIU.

Now, if the ED and CBI has all the proof of wrongdoings on part of P Chidambaram and his son, Karti, this should have logically been an open and shut case. All these proofs and evidences would then have been presented to the court, leading to quick conviction.

However, in the same affidavit, the ED states, “Though the Enforcement Directorate has collected substantial material to satisfy this court about existence of the evidence of the evidence to show the facts…it is only after the custodial interrogation of the petitioner that the investigation is capable of being fully complete and the truth being unravelled.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who has been appearing for both the CBI and the ED in the INX Media case, had submitted a sealed envelope containing evidence of the ED’s case to the court. But, however, after protests by Chidambaram’s counsel, the court agreed not to take that into account. But from the above statement of the ED, it is unclear whether the ED submitted any “evidence” of the accused’s alleged crimes or the “evidence of the evidence”.

While Chidambaram denies holding any foreign bank account or being connected to any shell company, his counsels have repeatedly asked the investigative agencies to mention the number and location of one such account. Till now, the investigative agencies have not presented any.

If the investigative agencies already know the details of the accounts, the web of shell companies and the details of the money trails, why are they not submitting the same in the court? Could it be that the investigative agencies have not been able to link Chidambaram and his son to any of the accounts and shell companies and are counting on extracting a forced confession from the former Union Minister and senior Congressman? While the CBI has repeatedly told the court that Chidambaram was not cooperating in the investigation and not answering questions, the senior politician has gone on to state that the CBI’s understanding of cooperation was the answers the agency wanted to hear.