
Veena T., daughter of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, arrives at the Enforcement Directorate (ED) office in Kochi on June 17, 2026, in connection with the probe into the alleged pay-off case involving Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL). File | Photo Credit: R. K. Nithin
The Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has registered two separate cases in connection with the allegations surrounding the financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions involving former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and former Minister P. A. Mohamed Riyas.

Mr. Vijayan, official sources point out, has been included in one of the two First Information Reports (FIR), which concerns the alleged corruption and payments made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct IT company owned by Ms. Veena, who has also been included in the FIR along with Mr. Riyas.
The transactions had initially come under scrutiny after investigations by the Income Tax Department and subsequent action by the Enforcement Directorate. The Central agency had acted on the basis of the report by the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board (ITSIB) in August 2023 stating that Mr. Veena and her company had received ₹1.72 crore as monthly payments from CMRL despite there being no evidence of any services given in return.

The allegations in the particular case reportedly concern the possible misuse of public office, the receipt of an improper financial benefit and criminal conspiracy.
The second FIR, which has Mr. Riyas as the first accused and also includes Ms. Veena, concerns the alleged hawala transactions and the transfer of funds abroad through intermediaries.
The registration of the two cases comes in the wake of a Kerala High Court directive, which required the State government to register cases in the corruption allegations.

The Court intervened after a petition challenged the government’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry through the Crime Branch instead of immediately registering an FIR on the basis of information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate.
The ED had reportedly forwarded a communication to the State Police Chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, requesting action in relation to suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Published - October 12, 2026 12:01 pm IST