Did funds parked in Sheena’s account lead to her murder?

Officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) grilled former media baron Peter Mukerjea was for six hours on Friday. 

The  probe agency is trying to ascertain whether funds allegedly siphoned off from the media house founded by Peter and his wife Indrani Mukerjea, the prime accused in her daughter Sheena Bora’s murder case, were parked in an overseas account of Sheena, which resulted in a dispute between Indrani and her daughter.

CBI sources said the agency questioned Peter on these lines in different sessions on Friday. They said the agency confronted Peter with the Income Tax returns filed by him and Indrani to ascertain their various investments in India and abroad.

The sources, however, clarified that at this stage it is difficult to nail any one possible motive behind Sheena’s murder and the agency is working on different angles that might have triggered the crime.

Sheena (24), Indrani’s daughter from her first partner Siddhartha Das, was allegedly killed by her mother, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and her former driver Shyamvar Rai in April 2012.

While seeking custody of Peter from the Mumbai special court, the CBI has claimed that he has told the agency that accounts might have been opened in the name of Sheena by Indrani in banks in Hong Kong and Singapore.

According to the CBI, the couple’s company 9X Media Pvt Ltd carried out its internal audit, in which nine companies having share-holding as on March 2009 were found to have instances of misallocation and siphoning of substanial amounts of funds by Peter and Indrani.

The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, also told the court that the “money siphoned off from INX (in which Peter and Indrani were partners) dealings was routed to Sheena Bora’s HSBC account in Singapore.” 

The reports of Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Income Tax and documents of chartered accountants substantiate the above facts, CBI said while seeking Peter's remand. 

Meanwhile, it has been  learnt Peter was extremely concerned about his son Rahul, who he felt was growing suspicious of him and Indrani for the victim’s sudden disappearance. “Rahul is 30 and should be doing something with his life instead of hanging out aimlessly,” said Peter, in a mail to a friend on July 23, 2012. The mail is part of the charge-sheet.