2022 (9) TMI 1527 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of bail - Money Laundering - siphoning off of funds to purchase properties in the name of his wife Nisha and subsequently she gifted a few properties to their daughter - HELD THAT - There is prima facie evidence which points out embezzlement and laundering of massive sum of money and there is clear cut evidence of the gift amount of around Rs.26.42 crores. The statement made in the reply mentioned above corroborated by the digital and documentary evidence - The frauds of crime are approximately Rs.155.21 crores. Given the fact that there is prima facie sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner with the aforesaid amount and also considering the massive amount involved the petitioner is not entitled to bail - the petition is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC.
2. Allegations of embezzlement and money laundering.
3. Prima facie evidence of embezzlement and laundering of a massive sum.
4. Petitioner's connection with the embezzled amount.
5. Denial of bail based on evidence and amount involved.
6. Expedited trial and restrictions on adjournments.
7. Procedure for obtaining a certified copy of the order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief from arrest in connection with the FIR. The petitioner was incarcerated upon arrest and approached the Court for bail.

Issue 2: Allegations of embezzlement and money laundering
The allegations involved the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mittal, in siphoning off a significant sum of Rs. 155.21 crores to purchase properties in the name of his wife, Nisha, who later gifted some properties to their daughter. The Directorate of Enforcement arrested the petitioner after being satisfied with the evidence.

Issue 3: Prima facie evidence of embezzlement and money laundering
The investigation revealed a complex scheme where fraudulent activities led to the transfer of funds, causing substantial losses to the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The FIR detailed the fraudulent practices, including the misuse of Foreign Letter of Credits, resulting in a significant amount being misappropriated.

Issue 4: Petitioner's connection with the embezzled amount
The petitioner's wife had filed a petition for quashing the FIR against her, which was stayed by the Court. However, this did not affect the petitioner's case, and the Court proceeded with the matter concerning the petitioner's involvement in the embezzlement and money laundering scheme.

Issue 5: Denial of bail based on evidence and amount involved
Considering the prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the embezzled amount and the magnitude of the financial fraud, the Court denied bail to the petitioner. The Court found the evidence of embezzlement and money laundering compelling, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Issue 6: Expedited trial and restrictions on adjournments
The Court emphasized expediting the trial without unnecessary adjournments, stating that any delay could prejudice the petitioner's case. The Court directed that the matter should not be adjourned unless for very special reasons to ensure a swift resolution of the case.

Issue 7: Procedure for obtaining a certified copy of the order
The Court clarified the procedure for obtaining a certified copy of the order, allowing advocates to download the order and case status from the official court webpage. Advocates could attest to the authenticity of the downloaded copy for legal purposes, streamlining the process for obtaining necessary documents.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence of financial misconduct, and the Court's commitment to an expedited trial while maintaining procedural efficiency in obtaining legal documents.

← Previous Next →