9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1380 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - bail sought on medical grounds - Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 - the petitioner with deliberate intention tactfully layered the proceeds of crime to the third party entities as well as his educational trust hiding the illicit origin without any economic rationale at the books of accounts of HCCPL - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of the materials including the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the Act and the other materials collected in the form of documents prima facie shows complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences. The conditions specified under Section 45 of the Act are mandatory while considering the bail plea of the petitioner. This Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. As per Section 24 of the Act in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 the Authority/Court shall unless the contrary is proved presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in moneylaundering. The conditions enumerated in Section 45 of the Act are to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.PC in view of the overriding effect given to the Act over the other loss for the time being in force under Section 71 of the Act. The Bail Application stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of money laundering and related offences. 2. Petitioner's health condition and its impact on bail consideration. 3. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Summary: Allegations of Money Laundering and Related Offences: The petitioner, accused No.1 in Crime No.ECIR/08/KCZO/2021, is alleged to have committed offences u/s 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner, a builder and developer, is the Managing Director of M/s Heera Constructions Company Private Limited (HCCPL). The CBI registered FIR No.RC3(A)/2019 against HCCPL for availing credit facilities from the State Bank of Travancore and alienating mortgaged properties without the bank's consent. The loan account was classified as NPA, and the bank initiated action u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The CBI filed a charge sheet alleging offences u/s 120B r/w Section 420 and Section 406 r/w Section 405 of the IPC. Based on this FIR, an Enforcement Case Information Report was recorded, and an investigation was initiated under the Act. Petitioner's Health Condition: The petitioner, aged 68, is an acute type-1 diabetic patient with a dead pancreatic gland, requiring an insulin pump. He also suffers from prostate ailments and high blood pressure. The petitioner's counsel argued that his health condition should be considered while deciding on bail. However, it was noted that the petitioner is receiving proper medical aid whenever required. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002: The court emphasized that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed seriously. The Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, as outlined in Section 45. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The investigation revealed that the petitioner layered the proceeds of crime to third parties and his educational trust, violating the loan agreement with the bank. The court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner's complicity in the alleged offences. The conditions specified u/s 45 of the Act are mandatory, and the court must presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless proven otherwise. The petitioner's counsel cited Thomas Daniel v. Enforcement Directorate and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement to argue against the presumption of guilt and to consider the petitioner's illness. However, the court concluded that sufficient materials were collected to establish the petitioner's involvement in the predicate offences, and proper medical care was being provided. With these observations, the Bail Application was dismissed.
|
