NewsClick case | ED issues fresh summons to American millionaire Nivelle Roy Singham under PMLA
The Hindu
ED summons U.S. millionaire Neville Roy Singham for questioning in money laundering case linked to NewsClick. Summon sent to Singham via email and Chinese govt. channels
The Enforcement Directorate has issued fresh summons to American millionaire Neville Roy Singham for questioning in connection with a money laundering investigation linked to online news portal NewsClick, official sources said Thursday (November 16).
The businessman, who is accused of spreading Chinese propaganda in India, is stated to be currently based in Shanghai, China.
Also Read | Statement by Neville Roy Singham on Newsclick funding row
The ED has issued fresh summons to Mr. Roy under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This is a fresh notice issued to him after the agency got issued Letters Rogatory (LR) from a local court seeking to record his statement, the sources said.
The summons have been sent to Mr. Roy on his email id and through the Chinese government channels, after the ED routed them through the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
This is understood to be second summons issued to Mr. Roy by the ED after one was issued last year after the investigation was launched in 2021.
Mr. Roy's name hit the headlines again few months back in a New York Times article.
Pakistan coach Gary Kirsten stated that “not so great decision making” contributed to his side’s defeat to India in the Group-A T20 World Cup clash here on Sunday. The batting unit came apart in the chase, after being well placed at 72 for two. With 48 runs needed from eight overs, Pakistan found a way to panic and lose. “Maybe not so great decision making,” Kirsten said at the post-match press conference, when asked to explain the loss.
“We are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era ... the writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law,” the High Court of Karnataka observed while setting aside an order of a single judge, who in 2016 had extended the lease of a public premises allotted to a physically challenged person to 20 years contrary to 12-year period stipulated in the law.