2022 (2) TMI 1441 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case or not - offence(s) under Sections 3, 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered against the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is revealed from the record that the petitioner is closed associate with the main fraudster Girdhar Singh Sodha and assisted him in managing proceeds of crime generated through Navjeevan Credit Cooperative Society Limited. Petitioner was a Vice Chairman of Sterling Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and he had assisted Girdhar Singh Sodha to infuse Rs.8 Crores in the form of Share Capital in the name of his close aids against the bye-laws of Sterling Urban Cooperative Bank Limited. Petitioner had done fraudulent activity relating to offence of money laundering. Looking to the gravity of offence, it is not considered a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed wrongful implication, stating no connection with the alleged crime, being made an accused due to being Vice Chairman of a bank. The petitioner cited delays in trial and sought bail.
2. The petitioner relied on judgments like P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Mohit Sharma Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement to support the bail application.
3. The respondent argued against bail, labeling the petitioner an economic offender with an active role in a fraud amounting to Rs.390 Crores. The petitioner was accused of money laundering and violating banking bye-laws.
4. The respondent cited judgments like State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi and various others to oppose the bail application.
5. The court found the petitioner closely associated with the main fraudster, assisting in managing proceeds of crime and infusing funds against banking bye-laws. Due to the gravity of the offence, bail was denied.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the reliance on legal precedents, and the court's decision to dismiss the bail application based on the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement in fraudulent activities related to money laundering.