9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1795 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - constitutional validity of Section 45 (1) of the P.M.L.A. Act, 2002 - allegation against the present petitioner is that he being the Chartered Accountant of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner arranged purchase of a property vide sale deed No.9786 dated 31.08.2009 from Sri Arun Kumar Agrawal and the loan of ₹ 20,00,000/- was taken from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited arranged by the petitioner for the co-accused Rajendra Kumar about which loan, the coaccused Rajendra Kumar was not having much knowledge. HELD THAT - Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of money laundering and the chance of his tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of Money Laundering 2. Involvement of the Petitioner in Concealment and Transfer of Proceeds of Crime 3. Application for Anticipatory Bail 4. Legal Precedents and Constitutional Validity of Section 45 of PMLA Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of Money Laundering: The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, is alleged to have facilitated the laundering of proceeds of crime for co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar. The allegations include arranging the purchase of property through illicit means, securing loans without proper agreements, and creating fictitious entities to conceal the source of funds. It is claimed that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime to project tainted property as untainted, thus committing an offense under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Involvement of the Petitioner in Concealment and Transfer of Proceeds of Crime: The petitioner allegedly arranged a loan of ?20,00,000 from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited for co-accused Rajendra Kumar, without proper knowledge or agreement. Further, the petitioner is accused of orchestrating transactions to conceal the origins of the funds and falsely project them as legitimate. The petitioner’s involvement is evident from various financial transactions, including the formation of Nandlal HUF and filing its income tax returns to cover up the illicit activities. The petitioner’s role in arranging these transactions indicates a deliberate attempt to launder the proceeds of crime. 3. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and arguing that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner’s counsel referenced a prior judgment where the court quashed cognizance against the petitioner for abetment under Section 109 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The counsel argued that since the loan amounts were not included in the disproportionate assets of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner should not be accused in the current case. The counsel also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India, which declared Section 45(1) of PMLA unconstitutional, to argue for bail. 4. Legal Precedents and Constitutional Validity of Section 45 of PMLA: The opposition counsel argued that Section 45 of the PMLA had been amended by the Finance Act, 2018, and no longer suffered from the constitutional issues identified in the Nikesh Tarachand Shah case. The amended Section 45 imposes conditions for bail, including the requirement for the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offense and not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The opposition counsel emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s potential to tamper with evidence, arguing against granting anticipatory bail. Judgment: Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the risk of tampering with evidence, the court concluded that this was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
|
