Nagpur: Former Minister of Home Maharashtra Anil Deshmukh on Monday said it would appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to record his statement in connection with his investigation into the money laundering case after the Supreme Court’s decision for the protection of his coercive actions in the case.
NCP leader comment came a day after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted a search in two residences in Nagpur Regency.
In a video message, Deshmukh said, “The Ed has temporarily confiscated my family property estimated around Rs 4 Crore.” He said his son Salil Deshmukh had bought land worth Rs 2.67 Crore in 2006, which has also been confiscated.
“However, several media reports said that Ed had seized the land of Salil Deshmukh worth RS 300 Crore, which, in fact, was bought by my son’s company for Rs 2.67 Crore.
This news is misleading,” he said.
Deshmukh previously skipped Ed’s call to be questioned in this case.
He recently moved the protection of the Supreme Court from coercive actions in the case of money laundering.
“I have received an ed call after that I filed a petition at the Supreme Court.
I will go to Ed to record my statement after the SC decision about my petition,” said the former minister.
Ed conducted an investigation into the money laundering case associated with the Briber-Cum-Extortion Multi-Crore Racket which led to the resignation of Dishmukh from the position of Minister of State Minister in April this year.
The Central Agency recently arrested Deshmukh Sanjeev Palande’s personal secretary and Kundan Shinde’s personal assistant after the raid on them and NCP leaders in Mumbai and Nagpur.
ED case against Deshmukh and the others were made after the Central Investigation Bureau (CBI) first conducted a preliminary investigation followed by a regular case submitted to the Bombay High Court order.
The court has asked the CBI to see allegations of bribery made against Deshmukh by former Police Commissioner Mumbai Param Bir Singh.
Deshmukh has denied mistakes.
Deshmukh appeared after the SC decision about the request
