9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1879 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Bail - Money laundering - predicate offences - matter having international ramifications - bogus purchase of software - HELD THAT - Applicant was arrested in predicate offence, and, subsequently, he was granted bail. Investigation in respect to PMLA, had been assigned to respondents before the applicant was granted bail. It appears that the respondents have continued with investigation and collected evidence against the applicant. The complaint gives filed by the respondents alleges that applicant had played a major role in money laundering. The complaint details as to how the applicant and other accused are involved in the present case. The contention of the applicant is that he is not concerned with the companies allegedly involved in the transactions - There is prima facie material to show the involvement of the applicant in siphoning off the proceeds of crime showing tainted amount, as untainted. It is also observed that this is a serious matter having international ramifications. The offence is economic offence is involving public money and the applicant has played vital role in laundering money. Bail cannot be granted - bail application rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Connection between the present case and the predicate offence investigated by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW). 4. Evidence of the applicant's involvement in the alleged crime. 5. Seriousness of the offence and its impact on the economy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure: The applicant sought bail under Section 439 in connection with ECIR No.2 of 2016. The applicant was previously granted bail in a related case investigated by the EOW but was subsequently arrested in the current case on 18th June 2018. The Special Court had earlier rejected the applicant’s bail plea. 2. Allegations of Money Laundering under PMLA: The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in money laundering activities as per the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC fall under scheduled offences covered in Part-A of paragraph (1) of the Schedule to the PMLA Act, 2002. The investigation revealed that funds raised through Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) were misappropriated and not used for their intended purpose. 3. Connection Between the Present Case and Predicate Offence Investigated by EOW: The case initially registered by MIDC Police Station was later taken over by EOW, and the applicant was granted bail in that case. However, the present case, which is connected to the predicate offence, was assigned to the PMLA Court. The applicant was arrested after 25 months from his release on bail in the predicate offence. 4. Evidence of the Applicant's Involvement in the Alleged Crime: The prosecution presented substantial evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement in the crime. The applicant, as the managing director of M/s.GL and in charge of certain products, was alleged to have projected the receipt of USD 31.79 million into the account of M/s.GTSL from M/s.YIL as untainted. The investigation revealed that the funds were not utilized for the intended purpose and were instead invested in shell companies and other entities. The applicant was also implicated in bogus purchases of software amounting to ?608.64 crores, with ?5.29 crores projected as untainted. 5. Seriousness of the Offence and Its Impact on the Economy: The prosecution and the intervener emphasized the seriousness of the offence, highlighting its impact on the economy and foreign investors. The offence involved a significant amount of money and had international ramifications. The prosecution argued that the applicant played a vital role in laundering money, which affected public money and the economy. Judgment: The court rejected the bail application, noting that there was sufficient evidence showing the applicant's involvement in the crime. The court observed that the offence was serious, involving public money and having international ramifications. The applicant's role in laundering money was considered significant, and thus, bail was denied. The court clarified that its observations were prima facie for considering the bail and would not influence the trial court during the trial. Order: 1. Bail Application No.2267 of 2018 was rejected. 2. Criminal Application No.1338 of 2018 was disposed of. 3. The observations made were prima facie for considering the bail and would not influence the trial court at the time of trial.
|
