ED attaches Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal's London, Dubai assets in Rs 538 cr fraud
New Delhi, November 1
The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday said it had attached assets worth Rs 538 crore of Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal, his family members and companies as part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged bank loan fraud.
The attached properties include 17 residential flats, bungalows and commercial premises spread over London, Dubai and India. The ED had filed a chargesheet against him on Tuesday before a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Mumbai.
Jet founder behind bars in laundering case
- Properties include 17 flats, bungalows, commercial premises in London, Dubai and India
- The Jet Airways founder was arrested on September 1 and is in judicial custody in Mumbai
- Beleaguered Jet Airways had shut its operations in April 2019 after running out of cash
The laundering case follows from a CBI FIR that was registered on the basis of a complaint by Canara Bank, Mumbai, which alleged that promoters and directors of Jet cheated them in taking a loan that was now a massive non-performing asset of Rs 538.62 crore, said the ED.
The properties seized by the ED are in the name of Goyal, his wife Anita, son Nivaan and their companies. He was arrested by the ED on September 1 and is in judicial custody in Mumbai. Jet Airways shut its operations in April 2019 after running out of cash. Later, Goyal stepped down as the chairperson of the airline. “Jet siphoned off the loans from a consortium of banks led by SBI and PNB, and Naresh Goyal implemented a massive financial fraud in which the funds were systematically diverted in the garb of irrational and inflated prices. This took the form of (beneficially owned) General Sales Agent commissions, large unexplained payouts to various professionals and consultants, granting of loans to JetLite Limited to acquire Air Sahara, and subsequently writing off the loans,” the ED has alleged in its chargesheet.
The Jet management toed Goyal’s line and kept on paying large sums of money even though these entities were not performing any substantial service after 2009.
