Pak handlers used Dubai-Bangkok network to pay CRPF officer Moti Ram Jat for espionage: Report
New Delhi: A financial trail stretching from Delhi to Dubai and Bangkok has been unearthed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with the arrest of CRPF Assistant Sub-Inspector Moti Ram Jat on charges of espionage. According to an exclusive investigation by The Indian Express, Pakistani Intelligence Operatives (PIOs) set up a multi-layered money pipeline disguised as legitimate trade, forex and remittance transactions to secretly fund Jat in exchange for classified information.
Jat, who was posted with a CRPF battalion in Pahalgam before being transferred to Delhi in April 2025, was arrested by the NIA on May 27 after agencies discovered his links to Pakistani handlers. He is alleged to have leaked sensitive details just days before the April 22 terror attack in which 26 civilians were killed.
An analysis of Jat’s and his wife’s bank accounts revealed that between October 2023 and April 2025, he received around ₹1.9 lakh from a PIO identified by the codename Salim Ahmed. The money was not transferred directly but routed through multiple channels designed to exploit loopholes in legitimate financial systems.
Investigators found that luxury Pakistani-made clothing and other goods were entering India through Dubai-based cargo operators after New Delhi imposed a 200% duty on direct imports from Pakistan post-Pulwama. Boutique owners in cities like Delhi and Patna were asked to make small UPI payments, ranging from ₹3,500 to ₹12,000, to certain numbers. Officials say these transactions, disguised as trade payments, were actually used to funnel espionage-linked funds into Jat’s accounts.
A second channel ran through Bangkok, where Indian-origin entities allied with PIOs lured Indian tourists with attractive rates for Thai Baht. After collecting cash in Bangkok, these operators used their Indian bank accounts, and those of relatives, to remit equivalent sums to India. This bypassed official forex systems and created cover for espionage payments.
A third route involved local mobile phone retailers in Delhi and Mumbai, who provided informal money transfer services alongside licensed platforms. Migrant and daily-wage workers often used these retailers to send money to their hometowns. However, investigators found that the same networks were exploited by PIOs to move espionage funds through personal accounts of retailers, with no proper verification of sender identities.
The NIA has conducted searches at 15 locations across eight states and recorded multiple statements linked to money deposited in Jat’s accounts. Officials believe the espionage network may have touched several other Army and government personnel, and a chargesheet is now being prepared to map out the entire mechanism.
According to the Indian Express report, the NIA considers this case to be a model example of how trade-based money laundering, parallel remittance systems, and foreign forex operators can be combined into a shadow economy to bankroll espionage inside India while avoiding detection through official channels.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
