<p>Kochi: Malayali actor Jayasurya and his wife on Monday appeared before the Enforcement Directorate here for questioning in a "cheating-linked" money laundering case, official sources said.</p><p>The federal probe agency recorded the statement of the couple under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, they said.</p><p>There was no immediate comment from the couple on the development.</p><p>The Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, as per the sources, stems from at least four FIRs registered by the Thrissur police on charges of cheating of some persons through an online bidding application called the 'Save Box'.</p><p>This purported investment scheme is stated to have been operated by a man named Swathi Rahim.</p><p>According to the sources, the agency first recorded the statement of Rahim who told the ED that the funds collected from investors were "partly diverted" to the film industry.</p><p>Some of these transactions involved the 47-year-old Malayali actor.</p><p>Part of the money was paid by Rahim to Jayasurya in lieu of obtaining his endorsement as a brand ambassador for the said investment scheme, the sources said.</p>.ED files final prosecution complaint in Chhattisgarh liquor 'scam'; 59 more named as accused.<p>Rahim is alleged to have told the ED that he made some payment (about Rs 30 lakh) to the actor's partner through banking channels while a higher amount was "paid in cash", which was handed over at a boutique run by Jayasurya's wife.</p><p>The actor and his wife were hence summoned by the ED to validate these allegations made against them by Rahim and to understand the entire deal.</p><p>The ED is looking at the proceeds of crime generated in this case, as per the sources.</p><p>The couple is understood to have told the ED that a "formal" endorsement agreement was inked for Rs 75 lakh out of which Rs 69 lakh was received through banking channels from a company named Save Box Concepts Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>The two are also understood to have told the ED that the advertisement was "never released" due to the "non-payment" of the remaining agreed amount, according to the sources.</p>
<p>Kochi: Malayali actor Jayasurya and his wife on Monday appeared before the Enforcement Directorate here for questioning in a "cheating-linked" money laundering case, official sources said.</p><p>The federal probe agency recorded the statement of the couple under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, they said.</p><p>There was no immediate comment from the couple on the development.</p><p>The Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, as per the sources, stems from at least four FIRs registered by the Thrissur police on charges of cheating of some persons through an online bidding application called the 'Save Box'.</p><p>This purported investment scheme is stated to have been operated by a man named Swathi Rahim.</p><p>According to the sources, the agency first recorded the statement of Rahim who told the ED that the funds collected from investors were "partly diverted" to the film industry.</p><p>Some of these transactions involved the 47-year-old Malayali actor.</p><p>Part of the money was paid by Rahim to Jayasurya in lieu of obtaining his endorsement as a brand ambassador for the said investment scheme, the sources said.</p>.ED files final prosecution complaint in Chhattisgarh liquor 'scam'; 59 more named as accused.<p>Rahim is alleged to have told the ED that he made some payment (about Rs 30 lakh) to the actor's partner through banking channels while a higher amount was "paid in cash", which was handed over at a boutique run by Jayasurya's wife.</p><p>The actor and his wife were hence summoned by the ED to validate these allegations made against them by Rahim and to understand the entire deal.</p><p>The ED is looking at the proceeds of crime generated in this case, as per the sources.</p><p>The couple is understood to have told the ED that a "formal" endorsement agreement was inked for Rs 75 lakh out of which Rs 69 lakh was received through banking channels from a company named Save Box Concepts Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>The two are also understood to have told the ED that the advertisement was "never released" due to the "non-payment" of the remaining agreed amount, according to the sources.</p>