Thiruvananthapuram: Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan on Wednesday offered to throw open the balance sheet of his law firm, KMNP Law, for the CPM to conduct a thorough probe. The Muvattupuzha MLA was responding to the CPM charge that he was using his law firm as a cover to launder money.
"I propose that the CPM State Secretariat depute someone with minimum integrity like T M Thomas Isaac for the purpose," Kuzhalnadan told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram.
He revealed the annual turnover of his law firm, in which he is one of the four partners, and the tax paid in the last decade. In 2014-15, the turnover was Rs 1.35 crore and the tax paid was Rs 9.99 lakh. By 2022-23, the tax paid was Rs 30 lakh.
He said his clients include some of the big royal families in the country, big industrial houses like the Tatas, and leading multinationals like Pepsi. "Of course, we have received money from foreign firms like McKinsey, but all in white (meaning legally)," he said.
The Congress MLA said it was by dint of sheer hard work that he and his partners had built up the law firm. "It is easy for today's Communists to hurl the charge of money laundering. These people can never understand the value of work. They live off the sweat of the workers," Kuzhalnadan said.
Challenge thrown at CPM and Veena
After he declared his readiness to be probed, Kuzhalnadan dared the CPM to make Veena Vijayan do him a similar courtesy. "Will the CPM State Secretariat allow me to examine the details of Exalogic," he said. "I am also willing to reveal the contact details of 100 former employees of our firm. Can Veena Vijayan reveal the details of at least 50 of their former employees," he said.
Nonetheless, Kuzhalnadan said his offer to the CPM remained even if Veena Vijayan refused to take up his challenge.
Title deed vs election affidavit
The other major CPM charge against Kuzhalnadan was that he had suppressed the value of the land he had purchased at Chinnakanal in Munnar and that there was a glaring mismatch in the value of land given in the title deed and his election affidavit.
It was pointed out that the value of 55 cents of land was given as Rs 1.92 crore in revenue records. However, in the election affidavit he filed the very next day, the CPM said that the value of the same land was shown as Rs 3.50 crore.
Kuzhalnadan said that the CPM allegation was based on just one title deed. He said he had purchased nearly an acre of land, but with three title deeds. The CPM, it seems, was aware of just one title deed related to 55 cents.
Trouble with transparency
The MLA said he had actually purchased the entire lot some nine months before he even had any inkling that he would be a candidate. He said he and his partners had also made improvements to the land once it came into their possession.
However, he said the registration was done late, right after he became the candidate.
"When I was made the candidate, the land was not registered in our names. But I had already paid the money," Kuzhalnadan said.
He said it was his insistence on being transparent that had now invited trouble. "In the interests of transparency, I told my office to complete the formalities quickly. By then, I had invested over Rs 3 crore in the property, including the improvements carried out," he said.
Essentially, Kuzhalnadan was arguing that the difference in the title deed amount and the figure in the affidavit can be traced to the money paid for the two additional title deeds, which the CPM was not aware of, and the improvements made in the nearly 6,000 sq ft property.
Stamp duty gain
He also rubbished the charges of stamp duty suppression.
He said even if the highest fair value in the nearly one acre lot he had purchased was taken into account (the one-acre land held within it varying fair values), the stamp duty he had to pay was only Rs 57.45 lakh. The amount he paid was Rs 1.17 crore.
Resort or guest house
Another CPM allegation was that the resort in the land purchased by Kuzhalnadan was constructed illegally. Once in possession of the land, the CPM alleged that the MLA applied for a no-objection certificate for the construction of a house in the land by concealing the presence of the illegal resort.
Kuzhalnadan, however, claimed that the building on his land was not a resort but a "guest house".
As per the Land Assignment Act, a resort cannot be constructed in a land vested under it. "There was no violation of this. The building was constructed as a guest house and not a resort. Therefore, it was legally safe. That was also why we had gone after this land," Kuzhalnadan said.
