Jaswant Singh Gajjanmajra, 60, an Aam Aadmi Party legislator from Punjab, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday in relation to a case brought under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that was filed against him earlier this year.

According to ED officials, Gajjanmajra was arrested because he had not responded to four summonses to appear for questioning in the case. They said he would be produced on Monday night in a Mohali court.

Advertisement

When Gajjanmajra was speaking at an AAP workers’ meeting in the morning at Amargarh in the Malerkotla district, the Jalandhar ED team took him into custody.

An ED team raided Gajjanmajra’s home in September 2022 in addition to his family’s cattle feed factory and school in Amargarh.

Following a property search by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to a bank fraud case worth ₹40.92 crore in the previous year, the ED filed a PMLA case against him. The CBI had stated that during the searches, 88 foreign currency notes, ₹16.57 lakh, and incriminating documents were found.

An ED team raided Gajjanmajra’s home in September 2022 in addition to his family’s cattle feed factory and school in Amargarh.

Following a property search by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to a bank fraud case worth ₹40.92 crore in the previous year, the ED filed a PMLA case against him. The CBI had stated that during the searches, 88 foreign currency notes, ₹16.57 lakh, and incriminating documents were found.

Following a complaint from a Bank of India branch in Ludhiana against Gajjanmajra’s company in Gaunspura, Malerkotla, the CBI launched an investigation. The company, which traded food grains, received loan approval from the bank four times between 2011 and 2014. The company had “hypothecated stock and diverted book debts with malafide and dishonest intention so that the same were not made available to the creditor bank for inspection and for effecting recovery as secured creditor,” according to the bank’s complaint, which was made through its directors.

The bank claimed that the loan had not been utilized for its intended purpose.