2020 (9) TMI 741 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Bail - fraudulent high value forex outward remittances/transactions exceeding ₹ 3500 crores, taken place in the current accounts - outward remittances made without making corresponding imports into the domestic tariff area and without disclosing the beneficial owners inside the country and outside the country and end-use of the proceeds of crime in the other country - HELD THAT - The petitioner have committed very serious offence in nature and there are ample chances to tamper the evidences and hamper the witnesses. Now the respondent laid charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Chennai and it is pending. This Court already dismissed the bail petition on two occasions and this Court does not find any change of circumstances to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no change of circumstances to consider the third bail petition of the petitioner. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Allegations of fraudulent high value forex outward remittances exceeding ?3500 crores - Petitioner's multiple bail petitions - Need for custodial interrogation - Comparison with relevant judgments - Prosecution's counter arguments - Tampering of evidence and witness intimidation concerns - Trial completion timeline.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application & Allegations:
The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA related to fraudulent forex transactions exceeding ?3500 crores. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner opened accounts in the name of 57 entities, made outward remittances without corresponding imports, and engaged in financial irregularities, leading to his arrest and judicial custody.

2. Previous Bail Petitions & Trial Progress:
The petitioner had filed multiple bail petitions previously, which were dismissed. The investigation was completed, a final report filed, and the trial court had taken cognizance of the case. The petitioner, having been in custody since arrest, argued for bail to effectively instruct his counsel and claimed innocence regarding PMLA offences.

3. Legal Precedents & Defense Arguments:
The petitioner cited judgments in similar cases to support his bail plea, emphasizing the need for fair trial preparation. However, the prosecution contended that the petitioner's actions violated PMLA provisions, necessitating custodial interrogation and highlighting the seriousness of the alleged offences.

4. Court's Evaluation & Dismissal of Bail Petition:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the risk of evidence tampering, and witness intimidation. Despite the petitioner's plea for bail, the court found no change in circumstances warranting a different decision from the previous rejections. The court directed the trial to be completed within twelve months.

5. Comparison with Relevant Judgments:
Drawing parallels with the judgment in the P. Chidambaram case, the court highlighted the differences in circumstances, emphasizing the seriousness of the petitioner's alleged offences and the potential risks associated with granting bail in this instance.

6. Conclusion & Trial Timeline:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application, citing the lack of changed circumstances and the need to ensure trial completion within a specified timeframe. The decision aimed to maintain the integrity of the legal process and address concerns regarding potential interference with evidence and witnesses.