Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya has filed a reply against the Enforcement Directorate's plea seeking he be declared a fugitive under the newly-introduced Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. The reply was filed through his advocate Amit Desai, in the Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act court. Mallya, in his reply, opposed the confiscation of assets worth about Rs £1.2 billion by the ED under the new ordinance. In his response, Mallya has said that if he is declared a fugitive offender and his assets confiscated, then all the money will go to the central government and deny creditors their dues.
Desai told the PMLA court that they are open to selling assets and paying back the creditors, but they are against confiscation of the assets. Mallya's reply also mentioned that in the past they have tried to sell the assets and pay back the creditors but it was opposed by the ED. The reply read, “It is submitted that over the past two to three years, when efforts have been made to repay the public sector banks, instead of taking steps to facilitate the process of repayment of the banks, the ED has at every stage resisted this effort. When application were moved before the PMLA court on March 7, the ED has opposed the application for disposal of assets to facilitate repayment of creditors. The same was done in Karnataka High Court. Now, they have filed the present application where the money will go to the central government and deny creditors their dues.”
It further read, “It is submitted that the efforts of the government should be to ensure that the dues are repaid rather than seeking to deprive claimants by confiscation of assets. The process for securing the presence of the applicant no. 1 is in progress and the matter is closed for judgment. The loans have been used for the business needs of the company like fuel, payment to suppliers and employers. Therefore, you can't say that the properties sought to be confiscated are proceeds of crime.”
Mallya has challenged several sections of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, as being unconstitutional, and wants those points to be referred to the High Court for adjudication. “Under the guise of deterring individuals from becoming fugitive economic offenders, the Act has transferred expansive and unchecked powers to execute, to conduct survey, search, seizures, attachments, confiscation, and disposal of properties belonging to these individuals,” the reply read.
