A special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Mumbai has taken cognisance of a money laundering complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate against former Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) executive chairperson Dr Rashmi Saluja and four others, including senior advocate Pratap Venugopal. Additional Sessions Judge R B Rote, designated as a Special Court under the PMLA, noted that the prosecution complaint, investigation statements, and other material demonstrated adequate grounds to move forward under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The court issued summons to all five accused, directing them to appear on June 11. The ED's case stems from an FIR registered by Matunga Police Station alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating. Special Judge R.B. Rote observed that "considering the prosecution complaint, the statements of witnesses as well as accused, it prima facie appears that there are allegations of criminal conspiracy to falsely implicate the Burman family."
The Enforcement Directorate has filed a chargesheet against former Religare Enterprises executive chairperson Rashmi Saluja, labeling her the 'principal architect' of a ₹179.54 crore ESOP scam. The ED alleges that Venugopal acted in collusion with Saluja and former REL executive Nishant Singhal to obtain legal opinions aimed at overcoming objections raised by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to the grant of employee stock option plans (ESOPs) to Saluja. The prosecution complaint asserts that Venugopal orchestrated the procurement of legal opinions without any mandate, authorisation or resolution from the Board of Directors of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) with a clear motive of overturning the directions of IRDAI with respect to grant of ESOPs to Saluja. The ED further alleged that Venugopal earned about ₹60 lakh between FY23 and FY25 as sitting fees while serving as an additional non-executive and independent director. The ED alleges this appointment was part of a quid pro quo arrangement, which provided monetary gains to Venugopal through sitting fees. Venugopal opposed the cognisance, asserting he only facilitated legal opinions professionally as an advocate and that seeking legal advice is not an offence, denying any quid pro quo arrangement and stating that sitting fees were lawfully earned as an independent director.
According to the ED's complaint, on November 29, 2021, under Saluja's leadership, the pool of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) was expanded from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent. A month later, on December 28, 2021, she proposed the grant of 2,27,11,327 shares of CHIL to herself and also to Singhal and Aggarwal. This allocation was equivalent to the expanded pool of 2.5 per cent of ESOPs. The ED claims that Saluja, in collusion with Singhal and Aggarwal, used her position for making unlawful gains in the form of ESOPs of CHIL, wherein she approved her own name along with the names of Singhal and Aggarwal for ESOPs of CHIL without discussion or prior approval of the board or management of both REL and CHIL. The ED alleges that even after the IRDAI's denial of the grant of ESOPs, the company went ahead with the transfer on the basis of legal opinions obtained by Venugopal from senior advocate Arvind Datar and retired IAS officer J. Hari Narayan. According to the ED, Datar's draft opinion was also edited to secure substantial equity stake in M/s CHIL for Saluja through the grant of ESOPs. The conspiracy, involving other former Religare executives, aimed to obstruct the Burman family's takeover and maintain control over the company and its financial benefits.
The court recorded that the ED claimed unlawful gains of approximately ₹179.54 crore were linked to the grant and vesting of ESOPs to Rashmi Saluja and other executives. Certain shares alleged to be proceeds of crime were provisionally attached under PMLA provisions. The prosecution complaint alleges that proceeds of crime were generated relating to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) granted by CHIL to Rashmi Saluja and other executives. The ED's case stems from an FIR registered by Matunga Police Station alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating, with the prosecution complaint alleging that a complaint against members of the Burman family was filed at the instigation of certain REL officials, with financial benefits reportedly offered to facilitate the filing.
Venugopal has strongly denied the allegations, arguing before the court that the claims against him are 'preposterous, mala fide and misconceived'. His lawyer Amit Desai contended that Venugopal acted strictly on the instructions and with the full knowledge of REL and CHIL officials, merely facilitating the obtaining of independent legal opinions from reputed experts in the ordinary course of professional practice. The defence argued that Venugopal acted in good faith and within the contours of his professional responsibilities, and that the allegations of quid pro quo and conflict of interest were completely baseless, as the amount of ₹60 lakh received was his professional fee and could not be treated as an incriminating fact. Saluja's lawyer Sudeep Pasbola contested the ED's claim, stating that the court did not have jurisdiction and that the grant of ESOPs was undertaken pursuant to recommendation of NRC, approval by the Board of Directors and approval by the shareholders. However, the Special Court refused to accept these contentions, noting that all arguments had been raised before the High Court and were not accepted, and that the Supreme Court had also dismissed Saluja's petitions. The court observed that the role of all accused has been specifically mentioned in the prosecution complaint and supported by statements of witnesses, stating that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
