The Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the special judge N K Malhotra that Bhaskararaman was not cooperating in the investigation which led to his arrested unlike Karti who appeared before the agency and cooperated with the investigation.
The submission was made by ED prosecutor Rajeev Awasthi in opposition to the CA's contention that his arrest was "gross abuse of power" and his subsequent custody was not required and the other accused persons, including Karti, were still not arrested.
The agency sought seven more days of custody of Bhaskararaman, who was produced before the court on expiry of five-day ED custody, saying there were contradictions between his latest statements and those he had recorded before the arrest.
"The money trail has to be traced. During the search operations, thousands of documents were recovered. Crucial piece of investigation have been recovered. We are putting those documents before him. The probe is ongoing and is at a very crucial stage," the agency said.
Bhaskararaman, who was arrested from a five-star hotel in the heart of the national capital, was produced before the court after expiry of five-day ED custody.
Karti's name had cropped up in the case which relates to Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval granted in 2007 for receipt of funds by INX Media when his father and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister during the previous UPA regime.
The agency had said that the investigation required the presence of Bhaskararaman for collecting vital evidence and other necessary information which is within his special knowledge and exclusive domain.
It had alleged that INX Media had deliberately and in violation of the conditions of the approval made a downstream investment of 26 per cent in the capital of INX News Pvt Ltd without specific approval of FIPB, which included indirect foreign investment by same foreign investors, and had generated Rs 305 crore foreign direct investment in INX Media Pvt Ltd against the approved foreign inflow of Rs 4.62 crore.
The FIPB unit of the finance ministry not only granted the illegal approval but also misinformed the investigation wing of Income Tax Department, the ED had alleged.
It had said the CA's custody was required to ascertain the trail of various properties involved in money laundering, to identify movable and immovable properties, involved and to further ascertain the role of the accused and his other associates in the case.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
