A serious allegation has been heard against the SIT officials who are investigating about Bitcoin that phones are being tapped on the pretext of Bitcoin investigation.
Bengaluru (Aug. 28): A serious allegation has been heard against the SIT officials who are investigating about Bitcoin that phone tapping is being done on the pretext of Bitcoin investigation. A complaint has been submitted to the court by the lawyer for Sriki that the phone of the lawyer for the accused involved in the Bitcoin case has been tapped.
Shriki's lawyer Swaroop Anand has filed a complaint in the 1st ACMM court against the Bitcoin case investigators.
Nifty Prediction for tomorrow July 14 | BankNifty chart analysis | Nifty 50 - Mechonline
SIT officials have tapped my phone, intercepted my WhatsApp call. He also issued a notice because he was a lawyer for the accused. Also, he was called to give a statement and questioned about his own WhatsApp call conversation. In the complaint, he questioned how the police got his WhatsApp call conversation record.
Not only that, lawyer Swaroop has filed a complaint demanding action against the SIT investigator and has made serious allegations against the SIT investigator, Inspector Dayanand.
The court received the complaint and issued a notice to the investigating officers. In addition to Inspector Dayanand has been instructed to attend the court on 3rd and give clarification about this.
Sudarshan Ramesh came to India from Netherlands on 12th June 2021. The ED had summoned him in connection with the Shrikee Bitcoin scam. Due to this, he attended the ED hearing on December 29, 30, 2021 and January 1, 2022 and filed a statement. On January 12, 2022, when he went to the airport to leave for the Netherlands, the ED had issued a LoC against him. Due to this, the immigration department stopped Sudarshan at the airport and gave a note saying that his passport has been cancelled. Due to this, he applied to the High Court.
Top 10 Work from home job in Kannada without Investment- Mechonline
Now the High Court has issued an LOC on the suspicion that he may escape from the trial. Holding that continuation of LOC against the petitioner on the basis of suspicion would be misuse of law, quashed the LOC.
