Preity Zinta Loan Not A Matter Of Investigation: Sources Amid Row

New Delhi:

Six firms that carried out the audit of New India Cooperative Financial institution from 2019 to 2024 have been summoned by the Financial Offences Wing (EOW), days after investigators discovered Rs 122 crore lacking from the financial institution, sources stated.

They stated the EOW investigation is just not linked to the controversy on social media surrounding actor Preity Zinta, after the Congress celebration’s Kerala unit in a submit on X alleged she handed her social media accounts to the BJP and bought a Rs 18 crore mortgage waiver from New India.

Ms Zinta has refuted the allegations.

The EOW is just trying into the case of the lacking Rs 122 crore, sources stated.

The summons to the six auditors are linked to the rip-off wherein Rs 122 crore claimed to be stored contained in the safes on the workplaces of the financial institution’s branches in Mumbai’s Prabhadevi and Goregaon had been discovered lacking.

The EOW stated the money storage capability on the Prabhadevi and Goregaon vaults of New India was Rs 20 crore. New India on February 11 stated its two safes had Rs 133 crore.

The Reserve Financial institution of India (RBI) discovered solely Rs 11.13 crore after they counted the money, leaving the remaining Rs 122 crore lacking.

The six auditors to whom summons have been despatched are Sanjay Rane and Associates and his associate Abhijit Deshmukh, UG Devi and Co, Gandhi and Associates, Shinde Nayak Associates, Jain Tripathi and Co, and SI Mogul and Co.

Hitesh Mehta, the overall supervisor and head of accounts of New India, has been named as the important thing accused within the rip-off. One other accused within the case is Dharmesh Paun.

The matter got here to mild after the financial institution’s new appearing CEO Devarshi Ghosh filed a criticism in opposition to Mr Mehta and others in Mumbai for alleged misappropriation of the financial institution’s funds.

The RBI earlier this month outdated the cooperative financial institution’s board for a 12 months and appointed the administrator to handle its affairs. A day previous to that, it imposed a number of restrictions on the lender, together with on the withdrawal of funds by depositors, citing supervisory issues and to guard the curiosity of its depositors.