2022 (2) TMI 1303 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - illegal obtaining of money and diversion o foreign countries - some profit sharing accounts were made and the money was paid to the persons who were neither connected with the Topsgrup nor with the MMRDA - twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT - The definition of offence of money laundering also mentions that the accused who knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, or possession, or acquisition, or use, or projecting or claiming it as untainted property, is said to have committed the offence. In this case, the proceeds of crime were received from MMRDA. It was projected as if it was legally acquired and then it was utilized for the personal benefits of Rahul Nanda and his family. Thus, his act clearly falls within the definition of 'offence of money laundering'. The material shows that the applicant had done it knowingly. It would be beyond logic, reason and propriety that the arrested accused would have to remain in jail as an under-trial prisoner till all the absconding accused are arrested, though he cannot be granted bail because of the restrictions under Section 45 of the PMLA. Said explanation does not indicate even remotely that Shri Mor's, advocate for applicant, submission in that behalf is acceptable. The bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for release on bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Allegations of money laundering and manipulation of accounts.
3. Role and involvement of the applicant in the alleged offenses.
4. Applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA for granting bail.
5. Separation of trial for the applicant from other accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for release on bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
The applicant sought bail in connection with Special Case No. 1124/2020 pending before the Designated Court for PMLA, Mumbai. The case arose from ECIR/MBZ0-I/40/2020 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The applicant was accused of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA.

2. Allegations of money laundering and manipulation of accounts:
The allegations included that M/s. Topsgrup Services and Solutions Limited signed a contract with MMRDA in 2014 to deploy guards. However, only 70% of the guards were deployed while billing was done for the full number. The undue monetary advantage was shared with Amit Chandole and others. The applicant was accused of manipulating profitability sheets and assisting in laundering the illegally obtained money.

3. Role and involvement of the applicant in the alleged offenses:
The applicant was accused of being aware of the manipulation of guard deployment figures and sharing illegal profits. Witnesses stated that the applicant instructed the preparation of false accounts and profitability sheets. The applicant was involved in discussions regarding payoffs to MMRDA officials and was accused of assisting in the destruction of electronic evidence.

4. Applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA for granting bail:
The court referred to the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA, which require the Public Prosecutor's opposition and the court's satisfaction that the applicant is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court cited the case of Ajay Kumar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that these conditions are revived by the Amendment Act 13 of 2018.

5. Separation of trial for the applicant from other accused:
The court considered the applicant's age and long period in custody but noted the restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA. The court allowed the possibility of separating the applicant's trial from other accused to expedite the process. The trial court was requested to decide the trial expeditiously within nine months if separated.

Order:
The bail application was rejected. The court allowed either the prosecuting agency or the applicant to apply for separation of the trial. The trial court was requested to expedite the trial and send progress reports every two months. The application was disposed of accordingly.