Muraleedharan denies collecting party funds for personal gain, seeks probe parity

BJP national executive member and MLA V. Muraleedharan has rejected allegations that he collected money for personal gain, stating that he never personally gathered funds for party activities during his six years as State party president and that all income and expenditure details were handed over to the party.

Speaking to reporters in Thrissur on Friday, he said he was willing to face any inquiry if there were allegations that he had collected money for personal purposes. "If anyone has collected money in the name of the party from anywhere, the State president alone cannot be held responsible. There is not just one Muraleedharan in the BJP," he said.

He added that if money had been collected in his name, an investigation could be conducted, and his accounts could be scrutinised if there was any suspicion of personal gain.

The allegations surfaced after an entry reading "Mr. Muraleedharan BJP" appeared in a seized diary belonging to Sasidharan Kartha, owner of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), purportedly recording a payout of ₹3 lakh.

Mr. Muraleedharan said he had been contesting elections since 2009 and that his asset and income declarations submitted to the Election Commission for every election could be examined. He said he had maintained records of his annual income since his days at the Nehru Yuva Kendra and had submitted the required details during every election. He also said he had not purchased any land or gold since 2012.

"Someone may have collected money for the party. There is also a possibility that money was collected in the name of the State president. If there is such a suspicion, any investigation can be conducted. But the same standards should be applied to everyone," he said.

Turning to the financial transactions involving CMRL and Exalogic, Mr. Muraleedharan said documents relating to payments made by CMRL to the company linked to Veena Vijayan had come out, and claimed, citing the findings of investigating agencies, that Ms. Vijayan had not clearly explained the services provided in return for the payments.

If an investigating agency had found evidence of money laundering in connection with the transactions, lawful further action should be taken on that basis, he said. The State government should explain why action was being delayed in the name of a preliminary inquiry, he added.

"The Chief Minister and the Home Minister should answer these questions," he said, alleging that the present approach was part of an understanding between the State government and the CPI(M).

Raising questions over the controversy surrounding Chief Minister V.D. Satheeshan's air travel, Mr. Muraleedharan asked why the Chief Minister was reluctant to disclose the name of the friend who had arranged the aircraft.