Vijay Mallya Questions ‘Economic Offender’ Tag After Banks Recover ₹14,131 Crore

0
188
Vijay Mallya
Vijay Mallya Questions ‘Economic Offender’ Tag After Banks Recover ₹14,131 Crore

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya criticized Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s recent announcement in Parliament, where she stated that public sector banks recovered ₹14,131.6 crore from the sale of his assets. Mallya, who fled India in 2016, questioned how he remains labeled as an economic offender when the recovered amount is more than double the ₹6,203 crore debt adjudicated by courts.

Taking to social media platform X, Mallya remarked, “The FM announced in Parliament that through the ED, banks have recovered ₹14,131.60 crore from me against the judgment debt of ₹6,203 crore, and I am still an economic offender. Unless the ED and banks can legally justify how they have taken more than two times the debt, I am entitled to relief which I will pursue.”

Union Minister Sitharaman informed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday about the significant recovery, which is part of the government’s ongoing campaign to address financial crimes and restore funds to public sector banks (PSBs). The funds were retrieved through the sale of assets seized under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Sitharaman also highlighted similar recoveries in other high-profile cases, including:
Nirav Modi: Properties worth ₹1,052.58 crore restored to banks.
Mehul Choksi: Assets worth ₹2,565.90 crore attached for auction.

Mallya, accused of financial irregularities linked to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, fled India in 2016. The Indian government has been pursuing his extradition from the United Kingdom to face trial. His assets have been liquidated to recover dues owed to banks and other creditors.

While the government hails these recoveries as a success in combating financial crimes, Mallya’s post raises questions about the legality and proportionality of the asset liquidation. His claim of over-recovery could open a new chapter in the long-running legal and financial dispute.

The debate now shifts to whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and banks can provide a legal explanation for the substantial discrepancy between the adjudicated debt and the amount recovered.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here