The Enforcement Directorate has filed a cash laundering case towards on run defence advisor Sanjay Bhandari to probe kickbacks price USD 4.99 million allegedly acquired by him from South Korean main Samsung Engineering Co Ltd (SECL) in 2009, officers mentioned on Monday.
Bhandari’s agency was paid by SECL, in violation of guidelines, to affect authorities officers in awarding a Rs 6,744-crore contract for establishing a Twin Feed Cracker Unit in Gujarat to OPaL, an organization promoted by some oil PSUs, together with ONGC, they mentioned.
OPaL, in flip, awarded the contract of the undertaking to a consortium of SECL and Germany’s Linde for Rs 6875.11 crore, they mentioned.
They mentioned the central probe company has filed an Enforcement Case Data Report (ECIR), equal to a police FIR, below the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA) to probe these dealings.
The company took cognisance of a CBI FIR filed early this month towards Bhandari and others within the case, they mentioned.
That is the second cash laundering case towards Bhandari after he was booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged possession of undisclosed belongings overseas and different costs in February, 2017.
A cost sheet was filed by the ED on this case in June.
The central probe company mentioned Bhandari had not cooperated with it within the probe within the first case and had run away from the nation and was final said to be within the UK or a close-by nation.
Within the newest case, the CBI has charged Bhandari for allegedly receiving kickbacks price USD 4.99 million from SECL in 2009 to affect authorities officers in awarding the Rs 6,744-crore contract to ONGC Petro Additions Ltd (OPaL), an organization promoted by PSUs like ONGC, GAIL and Gujarat State Petroleum Company.
The allegation is that the Twin Feed Cracker Unit (DFCU), the CBI had mentioned, which was to be arrange at Dahej Petrochemical Advanced in Gujarat, was awarded in favour of SECL in 2009 and advance funds had been launched to it from ONGC in contravention of Central Vigilance Fee (CVC) tips.
In its FIR, the CBI has additionally named the then Senior Supervisor of SECL Hong Namkoong, UK-based Foster Wheeler Power Ltd, and Bhandari’s UAE-based firm Santech Worldwide FZC, moreover unidentified officers of ONGC and OPaL, for alleged corruption within the award of the contract.
The tender for the DFCU undertaking was floated on April 20, 2007 for which two consortiums — Germany’s Linde and Korean SECL, and USA-based Shaw Stone and Webster and Indian Larsen & Toubro — submitted their bids.
Linde and SECL consortium gained the contract at their quoted “lump sum worth of Rs 6875.11 crore” on the premise of upper Internet Current Worth (NPV).
NPV of Linde and SECL was calculated to be round Rs 4,160 crore whereas that of Shawstone and Webster and L&T round Rs 3,918 crore.
The tender committee got here to the conclusion that NPV of Linde and SECL was greater and lump sum costs had been 7.75 per cent decrease than the competing consortium.
The opposite consortium challenged the choice however the objection was turned down and the contract was awarded to Linde and SECL consortium for a lump sum worth of over Rs 6,744 crore on February 10, 2009.
The settlement signed between the consortium and ONGC and OPaL had an integrity pact which mentioned no agent or advisor was to be engaged and no fee or payment could possibly be paid towards the contract in India or overseas, the CBI had mentioned.
The CAG had additionally raised objections to it and the undertaking was not accomplished even two years after the deadline of August 2012.
The CBI has alleged that Bhandari in its Earnings Tax returns didn’t disclose upkeep of international financial institution accounts within the identify of Santech Worldwide and likewise the receipt of USD 4.99 million.
Bhandari’s case first got here to gentle after the Earnings Tax division carried out searches towards him in April, 2016 and recovered sure “delicate” official defence paperwork from his premises.
The tax division had booked him below legal costs of the anti-black cash regulation.