Jayalalitha Vedict explained

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DV & AC) had valued total assets at Rs. 66.44 crores, while estimating income for past few years at Rs. 9.34 crores. Thus, there was a case of assets being disproportionate to the known sources of income. 

The Karnataka High Court re-estimated cost of construction from Rs. 27.79 crores to Rs 5.1 crores, a reduction of Rs. 22.69 crores. Expense in marriage of foster son was re-estimated from Rs. 6.45 crores to Rs. 0.28 crores claimed by Jayalalitha in her IT returns, reducing assets further by another Rs. 6.16 crores.

With these reductions, total assets now stand at Rs. 37.59 crores. 

Meanwhile, the court noted that there were bank loans of Rs. 18.17 crores in the names of various entities. Income from ‘Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.’, a TV company with no channels, was estimated at Rs. 1 crores and that from ‘Jaya Publications’ at Rs. 4 crores. ‘Gifts’ were estimated at Rs. 1.5 crores. Income from Grape Garden was estimated at Rs. 0.46 crores, with some more income from ‘Sasi Enterprises’ and rent. Total income, or more appropriately, total explainable assets, now stood at Rs. 34.76 crores, a jump of Rs. 25.42 crores. 

Thus, only Rs. 2.82 crores is unexplained. This is merely 8.12% of Rs. 34.76 crores. The High Court felt that such a small difference- less than 10%- is not sufficient ground for holding someone guilty. There is a precedent for granting acquittal if disproportionate assets are less than 10%. 

Valuation of assets, after all, is an estimate.  

[To read the verdict, go to http://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/CRL-A-835-838-2014.pdf. Start from page 913.]