New Delhi, Apr 6 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the bail plea of former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), noting the witnesses’ claim that he was the conceptualiser, initiator and fund provider in the alleged crime. The high court said the senior AAP leader was an influential person having the potential to tamper with evidence. It ‘out-rightly’ rejected Jain’s submission that he was not found in physical possession of any property, saying for the offence of money laundering physical possession of the proceeds of crime is not necessary. Satyendar Jain, who was arrested on May 30 last year by the ED, is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also rejected the bail pleas of Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, the co-accused in the case. “The petitioner Satyendar Kumar Jain is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody,” the judge said. The high court said it has examined the entire facts objectively in accordance with the law without being influenced by the stature of Jain.
Also Read: ‘Efforts To Defame Kejriwal’: AAP On ED’s Apology Over Sanjay Singh’s Name In Liquor Case
It upheld the trial court’s order dismissing the bail pleas of the three accused, saying there is no illegality or perversity in the decision and the order was well-reasoned based on material on record. “The court has taken note of the fact that Satyendar Kumar Jain has resigned as a minister…. Petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 CrPC and are thus not entitled for bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected,” Justice Sharma said.
The three accused had challenged the trial court’s November 17 last year order by which their bail pleas were dismissed. Satyendar Jain had submitted no case was made out against him and that he fully cooperated in the investigation. He said there was no requirement for him to remain in jail after filing of the charge sheet. The trial court had said Satyendar Jain was prima facie involved in concealing the proceeds of crime.
The bail pleas of all the three accused were opposed by the ED which argued the AAP leader was “in the thick of things”. The agency asserted the modus operandi in the present case involved “transferring cash from Delhi to Kolkata through Hawala operators and in lieu of cash, accommodation entries were layered and received from Kolkata-based shell companies into companies owned by applicant (Satyendar Jain) and agricultural lands were purchased from these funds. Applicant has denied having any role in taking accommodation entries in his companies”.
The high court, in its 46-page order, said the shareholding pattern of the three companies under scanner also shows “Satyendar Jain or his family is controlling these companies directly or indirectly”.
It said the share pattern is quite intricate and needs to be examined thoroughly. The court took note of the testimonies of the witnesses which showed the AAP leader was “the conceptualiser, visualiser and executor of the entire operation and is being aided and abetted by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain”.
The investments were also being made by people at the instance of Satyendar Jain as reflected from the statements of the witnesses, the high court said, adding in such cases it is not essential whether the witnesses have personally met the accused or not.
It noted one of the witnesses has stated that though he was appointed as a director of a company but the firm was “controlled by Satyendar Jain and Poonam Jain (his wife)” and all the decisions were taken by the couple.
It said the constantly changing pattern of shareholding in the companies clearly indicates Satyendar Jain was indirectly controlling their affairs.
The high court said the CBI has filed a disproportionate assets case against Satyendar Jain, a public servant, and other persons, including the other two petitioners, and cognisance has already been taken.
?Thus, the competent court is seized of the matter regarding the disproportionate assets and the present court cannot go into the question of validity of institution of such proceedings. It is also not disputed that during this period certain entries have come into the company against the payment of the cash through Kolkata based entry operators.
“The two facts are placed on record to show that during the check period certain disproportionate assets were amassed and those were round-tripped into the company through entry operators. There is a long association amongst the petitioners evidencing the trend of getting entries through the same operators,” it said.
The court said the entire amount of over Rs 4 crore has rightly been attributed to the petitioners and the contradictions in statements under Section 50 of PMLA cannot be examined at this stage and is a matter of trial.
It said the proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 3 (offence of money laundering) of PMLA, makes it clear that it includes any person who is directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
“The intention of the legislature in enacting the PMLA is that money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty and, therefore, the legislature thought it fit to provide a comprehensive legislation for this purpose. Thus the courts while dealing with matters under PMLA have to take into account the object and purpose of legislation,” it said.
The ED had arrested Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case based on a CBI FIR registered against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was granted regular bail by a trial court on September 6, 2019, in the case registered by the CBI.
In 2022, the trial court had taken cognisance of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) filed by the ED against Satyendar Jain, his wife and eight others, including the four firms, in connection with the money laundering case.
