The Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) has found ICICI Bank's former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chanda Kochhar guilty of accepting a Rs 64 crore bribe in return for sanctioning a Rs 300 crore loan to the Videocon Group in 2009.
The Tribunal underscored an apparent conflict of interest in Kochhar's approval of the loan. Shortly after disbursing the funds to a Videocon entity, Rs 64 crore was traced to NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd. (NRPL), a company promoted by her husband Deepak Kochhar.
This sum was funnelled via Supreme Energy Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL), which is reportedly linked to Videocon's promoter Venugopal Dhoot. While the Tribunal acknowledged that a final determination rests with the Trial Court, it concluded there was sufficient preliminary evidence to justify the attachment order under money laundering charges.
The bench of the Appellate Tribunal, while delivering its findings, stated that it could not accept the justification offered by Chanda Kochhar for presiding over the committee meeting that sanctioned a Rs 300 crore loan to the Videocon Group - an entity she was familiar with.
The Tribunal observed that Kochhar could not claim ignorance of the relationship and, therefore, her participation in the loan sanctioning process was in clear violation of ICICI Bank's internal rules and policies. The Tribunal further noted that immediately after the disbursement of the Rs 300 crore loan, a sum of Rs 64 crore was diverted to NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd. (NRPL), where Deepak Kochhar, the respondent and husband of Chanda Kochhar, was managing the company. He held 95 per cent stakes in Supreme Energy Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL), which in turn controlled NRPL.
Notably, VN Dhoot resigned from SEPL on January 15, 2009, transferring control of the company to Deepak Kochhar.
This order overturns the earlier clean chit she received from the PMLA Adjudicating Authority and supports the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) provisional attachment of her assets, framing the transaction as a prima facie case of money laundering.
With Agency Inputs
