The Enforcement Directorate quizzed Punjab-cadre IAS officer Anurag Verma for over eight hours on Wednesday in connection with its ongoing probe into the scam related to the Mohali-based Suntec City and Altus Space Builders Private Limited case.
They were accused of allegedly cheating landowners and customers through fraudulent CLUs and related documents. In the complaint, the agency has accused realtor Ajay Sehgal of being the alleged mastermind behind the generation and concealment of proceeds of crime estimated at ₹ 348 crore. Sehgal, described by the ED as a key promoter of the Suntec City project, was arrested on May 22. The money-laundering case stems from an FIR registered at the Mullanpur police station in November 2022 against Sehgal and other office-bearers of the Indian Cooperative Housing Building Society, including Suresh Kumar Bajaj, Aashish Kamra and Rajesh Girdhar. The summons were issued under Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for further assistance in the inquiry by the state police.
The central agency has also summoned the Mohali SSP on Thursday to gather details of the police investigation into the alleged fraud with buyers and farmers by Suntec City developers.
On July 20, the ED filed a nearly 3,500-page prosecution complaint before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Mohali. ED investigation revealed that GMADA started receiving complaints regarding the use of forged consent letters from 2020 onwards. It added that GMADA subsequently revoked the CLU for these projects partially under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, allowing the accused person to further generate proceeds of crime, which was under investigation.
An ED official familiar with the investigation said Verma was questioned about the case and his written statement was recorded on issues arising from the prosecution complaint, including the process for granting CLU (change of land use) permissions, scrutiny and verification of applications, alleged violations of RERA provisions and the role of competent authorities in detecting purportedly fraudulent consent letters.
