2019 (11) TMI 1702 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking enlargement on bail - Money Laundering - Hawala Transaction - Remittance of Indian Currency to abroad by submitting forged bills of entries - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, the applicant in connivance with Anil Chokhara, remitted funds amounting to ₹ 137,80,28,114.38 on account of advance import and deliberately did not submit import documents to the bank and as such, managed to siphon of huge amount totalling to ₹ 518,23,59,962/- to foreign shores in the guise of import. Hence, when seriousness of offence was of such magnitude, mere fact that accused is in jail since 17th March, 2019 is in consequential. Parity is claimed by relying on the order dated 4th August, 2017 whereby co-accused has been released on bail by this Court. In my view, reliance is misplaced. When the co-accused was released, this applicant was absconding, and proclaimed offender - Evidence on record, prima-facie, shows that the applicant floated number of companies/firms and has generated huge funds which he managed through various bank accounts of the bogus companies, outside the company. So also, applicant was not available for investigation for considerable period. His conduct, therefore, cannot be overlooked. Yet investigation is in progress. Possibility of feelling the country, cannot be ruled out, in the back-drop of this conduct. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused is not guilty of often punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002. Conduct of the accused is relevant factor while recording the satisfaction whether he is likely to commit offence if released on bail.. In this case, the applicant-accused was declared proclaimed offender and was not available for investigation for considerable period. Possibility cannot be ruled out that accused/applicant may also tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Application deserves no consideration - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a money-laundering case involving illegal remittance of funds abroad through forged documents.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the registration of a complaint by IndusInd Bank against multiple companies and directors under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for illegal remittance of Indian currency abroad through forged bills of entries. This led to the Directorate of Enforcement registering a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the accused companies and individuals.

2. Statements of key individuals, including directors and associates, revealed the involvement of the applicant in the illegal activities, including the formation of fictitious companies for fund routing and money laundering purposes. The investigation uncovered substantial amounts being siphoned off to foreign shores through fraudulent means, implicating the applicant as the mastermind behind the operations.

3. The accused applicant was declared a proclaimed offender after evading investigation for a significant period. Despite seeking bail on the grounds of completed investigation and lack of incriminating material, the complainant opposed the application, highlighting the seriousness of economic offences and the burden of proving innocence lying on the accused under the PML Act, 2002.

4. The court considered the stringent view towards economic offences, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations, evidence, potential punishment, accused's character, and public interest while determining bail. Given the magnitude of the offence, the court rejected the bail application, citing the accused's conduct, risk of tampering with evidence, and the ongoing investigation as reasons for denial.

5. The court also emphasized the conditions under Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 for granting bail, requiring reasonable grounds for believing in the accused's innocence and ensuring no likelihood of committing further offences while on bail. The court found the applicant failed to meet these conditions, leading to the rejection of the bail application.

Overall, the judgment underscores the seriousness of economic offences, the importance of evidence and conduct in bail decisions, and the stringent criteria for granting bail in cases involving money laundering and financial crimes.