New Delhi, Jan 21 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate (ED) said on Tuesday it has attached two commercial spaces, worth more than Rs 82 crore, at malls located in Delhi and Gurugram as part of a money-laundering probe against real estate company MGF Developments and its director, Shravan Gupta.

The federal agency said in a statement that it was "pertinent to mention that Shravan Gupta is also an accused in the ED case of AgustaWestland helicopter scandal and has fled the country".

Gupta could not be contacted for a response.

The latest money-laundering case, according to the ED, stems from an FIR lodged by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on a complaint from Emaar India Limited against MGF Developments Limited relating to "fraudulent and illegal" transactions of Rs 180 crore undertaken by Gupta.

Gupta, the ED alleged, "siphoned off" the funds from Emaar MGF Land Limited, a joint venture (JV) of Emaar PJSC, Dubai and MGF Developments Limited.

Gupta inducted two companies -- Nanny Infrastructure Private Limited and Saum Infra Private Limited -- for siphoning off the funds from the JV company through "sham and backdated" agreements in the guise of providing various services to the JV, the agency alleged.

An order was issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to provisionally attach two commercial spaces -- the first measuring 42,364 square feet and valued at Rs 50.83 crore at Gurugram's Metropolitan Mall and the second measuring 33,601 square feet and worth Rs 31.46 crore located at the Metropolitan Mall, Saket in Delhi -- it said.

The total value of these two immovable properties is Rs 82.29 crore, the ED said.

The agency said "various summonses" were issued to Gupta in the case but he "failed" to join the investigation. PTI NES RC

Asset attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act results in provisional seizure of commercial mall spaces linked to alleged siphoning. Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been ordered for two commercial mall premises on the basis that they are linked to alleged siphoning of joint-venture funds through induction of two companies and sham or backdated service agreements; the order follows a complaint alleging fraudulent transactions and notes the accused's failure to comply with investigative summonses.