ED verweist auf Spenden an die Jauhar-Universität in der Beschlagnahme gegen Azam Khan

The Enforcement Directorate issued a provisional order on Wednesday to attach land and building assets associated with the Mohammad Ali Jauhar University Trust, valuing the properties at approximately 1.17 trillion rupees based on current market estimates. The action, taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, targets the educational institution founded and controlled by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. The agency cited allegations that the trust received funds from non-genuine sources, including contributions made under the political influence of late SP patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav. The provisional attachment order, dated October 28, details specific financial transactions that the agency deems suspicious. It references a statement submitted to the directorate on October 5 by Om Prakash Agarwal, general secretary of the Meerut-based City Educational and Social Welfare Society and KSD Charitable Trust. Agarwal stated that he donated 5.23 crore rupees and one crore rupees through these two entities to fund construction projects at the university. He claimed these contributions were made under the influence of Mulayam Singh Yadav during a gathering in Delhi in 2012, attended by Azam Khan. Agarwal further noted that his wife, Sarojini Agarwal, then a member of the legislative council in Uttar Pradesh, recommended construction work using her MLC fund on directions conveyed by SRS Yadav on behalf of Mulayam Singh Yadav. Mulayam Singh Yadav passed away in October 2022 following a prolonged illness. During questioning by the directorate on October 13 inside Rampur District Jail, Azam Khan acknowledged that Agarwal may have made the donation on the advice of Mulayam Singh Yadav. Khan described the donations as being for a noble cause, for which he expressed gratitude. His statement is included in the attachment order. The agency also identified an additional unexplained donation of 5.6 crore rupees from an individual who failed to appear before the investigators. Furthermore, the order alleges that a company named A&S Enterprises provided donations worth 40 lakh rupees to the trust. In return, the company received government contracts valued at 25 crore rupees, though the order does not specify the details of those government orders. The directorate emphasized that the total donations of 12.29 crore rupees originated from non-genuine sources. The order states that a substantial portion of these funds was not voluntary charitable giving and therefore cannot be accepted as a legitimate source of capital expenditure. Additionally, the agency alleged that approximately five hectares of government river land were enclosed within a boundary wall of the university without any prior proposal or lawful authority. Citing an inquiry report from the district magistrate of Rampur, the order claims that 45 plots in Singankheda village, classified as enemy property held by a resident of Pakistan, were leased to the trust in 2007. Political reactions to the move have been sharply divided. Udaiveer Singh, spokesperson for the Samajwadi Party, asserted that the Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, and Income Tax Department function as frontal organizations for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party. He argued that these agencies act according to the convenience of the ruling party and that Azam Khan has faced harassment since the BJP came to power in Uttar Pradesh. Singh maintained that the university was established to provide education to poor families in Rampur and surrounding areas, characterizing the proceedings as biased. Conversely, Dinesh Pratap Singh, spokesperson for the state BJP unit, criticized the Samajwadi Party for labeling investigations as political vendettas whenever its leaders face legal scrutiny. He stated that the enforcement agencies operate independently under the law and court supervision. Singh questioned the motive behind the university, asking why there are charges of land grabbing from farmers, fabrication of documents, and money laundering if the institution was truly intended for the poor. He suggested that the issue involves looting in the name of education rather than genuine educational efforts. Singh also pointed out that courts have convicted Azam Khan in several cases and have not granted him a clean chit. Attempts to contact Azam Khan’s lawyers for comment yielded no response. The dispute centers on the legitimacy of the funds raised for the university and the legality of the land acquired for its expansion. The provisional nature of the order allows for further legal challenges and detailed examination of the financial records and property titles involved. The case highlights ongoing tensions regarding the intersection of political influence and institutional funding in the region.