New Delhi: Days after Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was inducted as the general secretary of the Congress, her husband, Robert Vadra, was questioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case for almost six hours.
Surprising all and sending a clear and firm signal that she “stands” by her husband, Mrs Vadra dropped her husband at the ED’s office for questioning on Wednesday.
Mr Vadra was summoned in connection with alleged money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property — located at 12, Bryanston Square — worth £1.9 million. The property is allegedly owned by Mr Vadra.
Virtually daring the saffron forces, who have been sharpening their knives to lunge at her through her husband, Ms Priyanka said, “He is my husband, he is my family... I stand by him, I stand by my family.”
Asked if it was a political vendetta, she said everyone knows why this is being done.
Mrs Vadra accompanied her husband, in a white Toyota Land Cruiser along with Special Personnel Group (SPG) personnel in tow, and dropped him outside the agency’s office in Jamnagar House in central Delhi. She then drove straight to AICC and assumed charge as AICC general secretary in-charge of Uttar Pradesh East. She was appointed to the post on January 23.
Mr Vadra entered the ED office at around 3.45 pm even as a team of his lawyers had arrived minutes before him. He left the ED office at around 9.40 pm.
This is the first time that Mr Vadra appeared before any probe agency in connection with alleged criminal charges of dubious financial dealings. Mr Vadra, who has denied the charges in the past, describe then as a “political witch-hunt” against him.
He also claimed that the investigation was “political vendetta” and described the agencies investigating him as “malicious”, and their action “unwarranted and unjustified.”
Mr Vadra, who had earlier sought an anticipatory bail, was asked by a Delhi court to cooperate with the investigation. The court had asked him to appear before the ED on Wednesday after returning from London.
The ED reportedly questioned him on transactions, purchase and possession of certain immovable assets in London. His statements were recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
