2023 (7) TMI 1392 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of pre-arrest bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime or not - criminal conspiracy - forgery with valuable security - breach of confidentiality and privacy under the I.T. Act - HELD THAT - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials available on the record showing the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the recovery of 36 ATM Cards of various banks from the petitioners and the allegation that he used to receive various phone calls from a Pakistani national and on his instruction he used to withdraw money from various ATMs and the allegation that from the proceeds of crime the petitioners had acquired immovable property as well and now a charge-sheet has been filed against them, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to these petitioners. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, thus, refused.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail under sections 45 r/w section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for the offences under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Issue 1: Allegation of Money Laundering and Criminal Antecedents

The petitioners were seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a complaint case registered for offences punishable under PMLA for the offences under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Petitioner no. 1 had three criminal antecedents, while petitioner no. 2 had no criminal antecedents. The prosecution case involved an FIR under various sections of the IPC and the Information Technology Act, alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery, breach of confidentiality, and privacy. Investigation revealed that the petitioners possessed 36 ATM cards of various banks and had acquired movable and immovable properties.

Issue 2: Falsely Implicated or Proceeds of Crime

The counsel for the petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated in the case and there was no evidence on record to prove that the transactions were proceeds of crime. However, the Union of India opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the recovery of 36 ATM cards, allegations of receiving instructions from a Pakistani national to withdraw money from ATMs, and the acquisition of immovable property from the proceeds of crime. Consequently, the Court refused the prayer for anticipatory bail, considering the materials available and the seriousness of the allegations.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, addressing the issues involved and the key arguments presented by both parties.