This is the presentation about The Famous INX MEDIA Money laundering Case Study

1.  INX Media – The Company Co-founded By Peter and Indrani Mukharjea
 INX Media- Later renamed 9x Media, was founded in 2006

2. Automatic Route
Vs
Approved route
What is FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROMOTION BOARD (FIPB)?
FIPB is a National Agency of the central government with the remit to
consider and recommend foreign direct investment (FDI) that does not come
under the automatic route.

3. In 2007 INX Media sought permission from the FOREIGN
INVESTMENT PROMOTION BOARD (FIPB) for two purpose; first, to
issue equity shares to three non-residents investors – Dunearn
Investment (Mauritius) Pvt Ltd. NSR PE Mauritius LLC, and New
Vernon Private Equity Ltd.
Second to make a downstream investment to the extent of 26
% of the issued and outstanding equity share capital of
INX NEWS PVT LTD.

4. The Case file
The Finance Ministry Received an application from INX Media
for FIPB approval on March 15, 2007.
However the board did not approve downstream investment by
INX Media In INX News. And even for INX Media, FIPB allowed
FDI inflow of only Rs. 4.62 crores. And they taken money RS
305 Cr.
As per the CBI FIR, Contrary to approval of FIPB, INX Media
Deliberately Violated conditions and made downstream
investment up to 26% in the capital of INX News.

5. They allegedly generated Rs. 305cr. Of FDI in INX Media against the allowed
foreign inflow
of 4.26 crore by issuing shares of Rs 800 per share.

6. In 2008, the Investigation Wing of the Income tax
Department received a complaint about the INX
Shenanigans, after which it should clarification from FIPB,
which, in turn , shot off a letter to INX Media questioning the
irregulatries in their conduct on both accounts.

7. The Mukherjee sought the help of karti to get out of the
tricky situation. Reffering Chess Management Services LTD.
Where Karti was a director, INX Media issues clarifications
to the letter by the FIPB, which then mysteriously agreed
and ignored the serious illegality involved in the matter. The
FIPB then advised INX Media for a fresh approval on the
downstream investment, which was later granted.
“To get issue resolved amicably by influencing public
servants of FIPB unit of the Finance Ministry by virtue of
this relationship with the then Finance Minister (P.
Chidambram)”

8. Finance Ministry officials not just continued to grant undue
favours to INX Media, but also ignored requests from the
Revenue Department to the investgate matter.
Though Chess Management Services, directly controlled by Karti,
provided services to INX Media, the invoice against the company
for payment of 3.5 cr. Was raised by Advance Strategic Consulting
Limited and other firms so as to conceal Karti’s Identity.

9. In May, 2017 the Enforcement Directorate filed a
money laundering case against Karti
Chidambaram INX Media and its directors.
Subsequently the CBI also filed a case against
Karti Chidambaram.
A lookout Notice, which alerts to airports to stop
a passenger from travelling abroad was also
issued against Karti Chidambaram.

10. CBI registered case under section 120-B of Indian
Police Code (IPC) r/w 420 of IPC and Section 8 , 13(2)
r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against all the accused.

11. In February 2018, Karti Chidambaram was arrested by CBI
in a money laundering case, where he was accused of
receiving 1 million money from a media company for
using his influence ot manipulate a tax probe against it.
In Oct 2018, the Enforcement Directorate attached assets
worth 54 crore of Karti Chidambaram in Delhi, Ooty,
Chennai, London and Spain, In connection with INX Media
Case.

12. In August 2019,
Co-accused Indrani Mukharji has already become an approver confessing to
bribing Chidambaram and his son Karti.
The High Court Denied anticipatory bale to P.Chidambaram and said:
“It Cannot be forgotten that the petitioner (Chidambaram) was finance
minister at the relevant time and he had given FDI clearance to INX Media
Group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of 305 crore. “
“Simply because he is a Member of Parliament would not justify grant of
pre-arrest bail to him. The magnitude of the offence dissuades this court to
grant bail to the petitioner.