9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1115 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of bail - attachment of London based property - foreign proceeds of crime - siphoning off of funds - criminal conspiracy with Kapil Wadhwan Promoter Director of M/s.DHFL and others for extending financial assistance to M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) in lieu of substantial undue benefit to applicant and his family members through companies held by them - HELD THAT - The proceeds of crime according to complainant involved in this case is 5050 Crores. It is also revealed that the applicant had siphoned off huge amount out of India through his family/group owned controlled companies. It is found that out of the proceeds of crime of 600 Crores 378 Crores were invested overseas. The investigation in relation to exact foreign proceeds of crime is still under investigation. The applicant and his family members have incorporated or beneficially interest in various companies. The applicant is desperately trying to dispose of his property. He has given online advertisement for sale of his London based property - The said property is attached by ED vide provisional attachment order dated 25th September 2020 being proceeds of crime in terms of Section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA Act. According to complainant if the applicant is released on bail he will try to sell that property. Further investigation is still in progress. The offence is of serious nature. There is voluminous evidence showing involvement of the applicant in the crime. In the light of nature of evidence no case for grant of bail is made out. It is settled law that while granting bail the Court has to keeping in mind the nature of accusations evidence in support thereof. Huge loss of public fund is required to be viewed seriously. The Special Court under PMLA has analysed the material on record - there are no reason to deviate from the said observation. The applicant being MD/CEO of YES Bank has allegedly misused his position to gain undue financial gain to him and his family members. The applicant and his family earned beneficial. The statement of witnesses shows the modus operandi of the accused. Investigation revealed that YES Bank extended loans to entities despite incurring losses. These entities extended loan to company owned by family members of applicant. There was no active or operating business in DUVPL. The loan proposal was approved by DHFL on the basis of standard properties furnished as security by DUVPL a company owned by daughters of applicant. DUVPL has no business activity and not generating revenue. Investigation revealed that money was laundered to buy properties at several places in India and abroad - There are specific allegations against applicant that he has gained financial benefits. The submissions urged by applicant is in the nature of defense. It cannot be disputed that money lying with YES Bank is public Money. It is settled law that the Court has to take into consideration nature of accusations evidence in support severity of punishment which conviction will entail reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with larger interest of public/state. It is also settled law that economic loss of public offences involving huge funds to be viewed seriously. On the basis of evidence on record no case for grant of bail is made out - bail application ejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and financial misconduct. 3. Health condition of the applicant as a ground for bail. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA post its amendment. 5. Evidence of money laundering and involvement of accused. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): The applicant sought bail in ECIR No. MBZO-I/03/2020 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA. The applicant was arrested on 8th March 2020, and the bail application was previously rejected by the Special Court under the PMLA Act. 2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Financial Misconduct: The core allegations involve the applicant, during his tenure as MD/CEO of YES Bank, entering into a criminal conspiracy with the promoters of DHFL. YES Bank invested ?3,700 Crores in DHFL debentures, and in return, the applicant received a kickback of ?600 Crores disguised as a loan to DOIT Urban Ventures Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by the applicant's family. The loan was sanctioned on the basis of substandard collateral, and the funds were allegedly siphoned off and laundered through various companies controlled by the applicant and his family. 3. Health Condition of the Applicant as a Ground for Bail: The applicant argued for bail on medical grounds, citing multiple chronic ailments, including asthma, hypertension, and immunodeficiency syndrome. The applicant's counsel contended that his health condition necessitated a safe living environment outside jail. However, the court noted that the medical documents provided pertained to the period before the arrest and that the applicant had been examined during custody without any significant findings. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Post its Amendment: The applicant's counsel argued against the applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which were struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah. The prosecution contended that the conditions were revived by the amendment to Section 45. The court, however, did not find it necessary to adjudicate on this issue, given the gravity of the offence and the evidence on record. 5. Evidence of Money Laundering and Involvement of Accused: The court examined the voluminous evidence presented, including statements from various witnesses and the flow of funds chart. It was established that the applicant misused his position to gain undue financial benefits, and the funds were laundered through companies with no substantial business activities. The investigation revealed a significant economic scam involving ?5050 Crores, with funds being siphoned off and laundered for personal gain. Conclusion: The court concluded that the nature of the accusations, the evidence in support, and the severity of the offence did not warrant the grant of bail. The applicant's involvement in a serious economic offence, misuse of public funds, and the potential risk of tampering with evidence were significant considerations. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the court directed the jail authority to provide appropriate medical treatment to the applicant. Order: (i) Criminal Bail Application No.4999 of 2020 is rejected. (ii) The Jail Authority shall provide appropriate medical treatment to the applicant.
|
