Hyderabad: Former Andhra Pradesh minister Karumuri Venkata Nageswara Rao failed to appear before the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Hyderabad unit on Tuesday despite multiple summons in connection with the AP liquor transportation scam, agency sources said.According to ED sources, Rao had been directed to appear on July 14 but did not turn up. The agency alleged that the former minister was not cooperating with the investigation and said its sleuths were looking for him.The Telangana high court had earlier, on July 3, dismissed Rao’s anticipatory bail petition. The liquor transportation case is being investigated under a separate Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and is distinct from the main Andhra Pradesh liquor scam case.ED officials are also working on the provisional attachment of properties linked to the accused in the transportation case. The agency had earlier arrested Rao’s son, Karumuri Sunil Kumar, alleging that he played a central role in receiving and laundering the proceeds of crime.Tender system ‘altered to favour syndicate’The case relates to the alleged manipulation of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation (APSBCL) liquor transportation tender process between 2020 and 2024.The ED alleged that the decentralised district-wise transportation system was replaced by a centralised state-level policy without proper govt approval, favouring a particular syndicate. Tender conditions were allegedly tailored to benefit selected entities, primarily Sigma Supply Chain Solutions and Prasaad Transports.According to the agency, genuine transporters were excluded through dummy bidders and fictitious financial credentials. It alleged that inflated transportation rates and extensions granted to contracts caused a loss of about ₹195.3 crore to the govt exchequer.The ED claimed that Rao acted as a political facilitator and used his influence to manipulate the tender process. The alleged proceeds were later diverted through shell entities and vendors, including Casta Pink and Ezyload Network, to conceal their origin and distribute kickbacks to political functionaries and their relatives.The agency alleged that Rao, through his son, imposed an oral “85:15” profit-sharing arrangement on liquor transportation sub-contractors. Under the alleged arrangement, 85% of the profits earned by Sree Sudarsana Constructions had to be paid to the Karumuri family, while the actual sub-contractors retained the remaining 15%.Investigators claimed that more than ₹11.9 crore was transferred to the personal bank accounts of Sunil Kumar and other family members. The ED alleged that the money was used to buy vehicles and watches, meet political expenditure, make advances for real estate transactions and proposed land purchases in Khajaguda and Kokapet.The agency cited land transactions involving a property in Khajaguda valued at ₹35 crore and another in Kokapet valued at ₹30 crore as part of its investigation into the alleged utilisation of the proceeds of crime.Rao denies role in tender processIn his anticipatory bail petition before the Telangana high court, Rao contended that he was neither a member of any tender committee nor held any formal position in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation.He argued that no specific overt criminal act had been attributed to him and that no proceeds of crime had been traced directly to his personal bank accounts. Rao also maintained that the allegations stemmed from subsequent commercial disputes between private parties and did not constitute criminal activity.The former minister told the court that he had not avoided the investigation and had sought a 10-day adjournment after receiving the summons, citing medical reasons and the need to collect documents. He also referred to his status as a former minister and member of the legislative assembly while seeking protection from arrest.Opposing the petition, the ED described it as devoid of merit and alleged that Rao had benefited from the proceeds of crime through members of his family. It also accused him and his son of coercing business partners into signing a fabricated, backdated agreement to portray illegal commissions as legitimate income from a joint venture.The agency further alleged that witnesses were threatened and prevented from cooperating with investigators. It argued that Rao’s custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the complete money trail, confront him with financial records, and prevent the destruction or fabrication of evidence.
