2022 (11) TMI 1354 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offences - provisional attachment of the proceeds - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - Scam/fraud committed by the accused-applicant and other accused is gigantic and mammoth. 1.75 lakh investors investing their hard earned money who were lured by the accused-applicant, and his brother in scheme BIKEBOT. Thousands of crores had been collected by them out of which they had purchased movable and immovable assets of several hundred of crores which is evident from the investigation. Economic offences are to be viewed differently while considering the bail application of an accused. Considering the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA, this Court does not find this case to be a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail and, thus the bail application is hereby rejected.

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Rejection of bail application by the Sessions Judge/Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow.
3. Allegations of fraud and forgery against accused and other Directors of a company.
4. Submission of charge-sheets/final reports by the Economic Offence Wing of Police.
5. Allegations of luring the public to invest in a bike taxi scheme and not fulfilling promises.
6. Collection of funds from investors and failure to pay returns as promised.
7. Attachment of movable and immovable properties worth Rs.103.71 crores.
8. Acquisition of shareholding in other companies and transfer of funds for personal gains.
9. Identification and attachment of proceeds of crime including immovable properties and bank accounts.
10. Accused's judicial custody in respect of predicate offences and opposition to bail by the Directorate of Enforcement.
11. Enlargement on bail request by the accused-applicant and opposition by the Directorate of Enforcement.
12. Consideration of the magnitude of the scam/fraud and the accused's involvement in denying bail.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA seeking relief in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery related to a bike taxi scheme. The accused-applicant approached the High Court after his initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge/Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow.

2. The accused and other Directors of a company are accused of luring the public to invest in a bike taxi scheme under false pretenses, promising assured returns but failing to fulfill the commitments. The accused allegedly collected funds from investors, amounting to several thousands of crores, and then cheated and defrauded them by not honoring the promised returns.

3. The Economic Offence Wing of Police submitted charge-sheets and final reports in various FIRs related to the case, highlighting the magnitude of the alleged fraud and forgery. The accused-applicant was accused of being actively involved in the commission of the offense and collecting proceeds of crime.

4. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused-applicant was not entitled to bail due to his involvement in the offense under the PMLA. The Directorate highlighted the seriousness of the offense and the accused's role in the scam, emphasizing that economic offenses should be viewed differently when considering bail applications.

5. The High Court, after considering the submissions from both parties, concluded that the scam/fraud committed by the accused and others was significant, involving a large number of investors and substantial amounts of money. Considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, the Court deemed the case unfit for granting bail to the accused-applicant and subsequently rejected the bail application.

6. The judgment underscores the gravity of economic offenses and the stringent criteria for granting bail in such cases, especially when significant financial fraud and forgery are involved. The decision reflects the Court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and preventing individuals from exploiting the public through fraudulent schemes and financial misconduct.

← Previous Next →