| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2849 (Del-HC) PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002
Sections 45, 19, 3 & 4
Applicant filed bail application in respect of non-adherence to section 19, but the same plea was raised in previous application, which was rejected by Coordinate Bench of this Court, considering gravity of offence and previous of acts of applicant regarding provide of fake addresses and absconding from law, the application was rejected.
|
Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - Application for grant of bail in respect of non-adherence to section 19 - Rejection of same plea by Coordinate Bench of this Court - Allowability
ED arrested applicant for violation of sections 3 and 4 as he along with co-accused incorporated companies for routing proceeds of crime. The applicant filed an application for grant of bail on the ground that he was entitled to bail as section 19 was not invoked as he had never been arrested. Without a recording under section 19 an opinion that he was guilty of the offence, rigours of section 45 would not apply. Held: It was found that in previous bail application, the applicant had raised the same plea with regard to the non-adherence to section 19 and for the entitlement of the bail, which was rejected a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, on the basis of issue-estoppel, the applicant could not raise these grounds again. Further, allegations against the applicant were very serious in nature. There had been multiple layering, calling for painstaking and detailed investigations. The applicant had fully participated in the money laundering by lending his companies accounts to his brother and making accommodating entries. Considering the gravity of the offence, the previous reluctance of the applicant to co-operate with the investigating agencies, providing of fake addresses as well as absconding from law, were all factors indicative of the non-fulfillment of the twin conditions under section 45, to justify the grant of bail to the applicant. Thus, the bail application was rejected.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the applicant
A.Y. :
IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT
ASHA MENON, J.
Bimal Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
Bail Appln. 2438/2022
13 September, 2022
Petitioner by: Naveen Malhotra, Ritnik Malhotra & Nilansh Malhotra, Advocates
Respondent by: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Vivek Gurnani, Advocate with Rajendra Singh, I.O.
1. This Bail Application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') read with section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA') by one of the accused for grant of bail in Complaint Case No. 263/2020, ECIR/05/HIU/2018 registered under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
2. The case alleged against the applicant is that he had operated a firm for money laundering in conspiracy with his brother, namely, Naresh Jain. It is alleged that he along with the co-accused and other employees, had incorporated and operated 450 Indian entities and 104 foreign entities for routing proceeds of crime and also enabling purchase of offices and properties as if with untainted funds. It is alleged that the co-accused Naresh Jain had placed funds in his companies and layering was done by routing the proceeds of crime into various companies that had dummy shareholders and Directors and were used for opening bank accounts, using identity proofs and documents of real persons, but changing photographs and addresses. Naresh Jain was arrested on 1-9-2020 under section 19 of the PMLA. The investigations have traced proceeds of the crime to the tune of Rs. 5,65,11,22,269, but the extent of money laundering was more than rupees ninety six thousand crores. Further investigations were proceeding, but the first complaint and the supplementary complaints had been filed against the accused persons, including the present applicant.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|