DBSJeyaraj.com on Facebook

CID Completes Investigations in Many Cases But No Action Taken Due to Delays in Attorney-General’s Dept

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page

In the case of investigations carried out by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), a delay on the part of the Attorney General’s Department has been listed as the reason why no action has been taken.

According to a note prepared by the CID, those cases include the following:

• Date of complaint; January 14, 2015 – Investigations into alleged conspiracy at Temple Trees in the early hours of January 10, 2015. File referred to AG on January 27, 2015. File No: CR /108/2015,

• Date of complaint: February 4, 2015: Investigations into assets of former Chairman of the Port Authority Priyath Bandu Wickremamunige. File referred to AG: May 5 2015. File No: CR/1/271/15

• Date of complaint: January 14, 2015: Investigations into missing vehicles of Presidential Secretariat. Date file referred to AG: January 6, 2016. File referred to AG: June 1, 2016: File No: CR/1/1/16

• Date of complaint: March 11, 2015: Investigations into Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Company. File referred to AG: March 11, 2015. File No: CR/1/91/2015

• Date of complaint: October 13, 2015: Investigation into ‘MV Avant Garde’ ship detected by Sri Lanka Navy with arms and ammunition on board off Galle Harbour: File referred to AG on February 2, 2016. File No: 1/08/2016.

• Acquiring illegal assets using criminal proceeds by former Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage. File referred to AG on July 21, 2016. File No: CR1/AMC/CFT/5/2016

• Date of complaint: February 4, 2015. Investigations against Sajin de Vass Gunawardena under the Money Laundering Act. File sent to AG on September 13, 2016. File No: CR01/AML/CFT/12/16

An FCID officer said some 80 files of investigations completed were now with the Attorney General’s Department. This is besides a large number of files that were returned to Police Chief Pujith Jayasundera at his request.

AG’s Department Officials have repeatedly insisted that some of the investigations though completed lacked sufficient details. Others lacked substantial evidence that would warrant an indictment, they pointed out.

The AG”s Department works on the principle that an indictment must have a reasonably good chance of a conviction in a court of law. Otherwise, it should not proceed with a prosecution. Many files sent to the AG’s Deparment do not have that amount of evidence to launch a successful prosecution, they say.

Courtesy:Sunday Times

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page