2021 (11) TMI 233 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of anticipatory bail - Proceeds of crime - cheating the investors - recipient of crime - Sections 3 read with Section 70 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- Allegations of receiving proceeds of crime and money laundering.
- Co-accused involvement and legal arguments regarding forwarding of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
- Opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail based on seriousness of allegations and need for custodial interrogation.

Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, apprehending arrest. The petitioner, a director of a company, was alleged to have received proceeds of crime and laundered money collected by the company from investors. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming cooperation with enforcement authorities and citing the involvement of other main conspirators. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code to trials under the PMLA Act.

Legal Arguments and ECIR Forwarding:
The petitioner argued that the Enforcement Directorate's failure to forward the ECIR to the Special Court deprived the petitioner of the opportunity for remand, impacting the right to anticipatory bail. The Enforcement Directorate opposed this argument, emphasizing the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which specify the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code and the requirement for a complaint in writing for cognizance by the Special Court. The Directorate contended that the ECIR forwarding was not equivalent to an FIR and highlighted the mandatory nature of filing a complaint for cognizance under the Act.

Opposition to Anticipatory Bail:
The Enforcement Directorate vehemently opposed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation to attach further laundered money. The Directorate argued that the petitioner, accused of money laundering exceeding a certain amount, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe in his innocence or non-involvement in future offenses while on bail. The Directorate stressed the importance of custodial interrogation for the attachment of additional laundered funds.

Judgment:
The Court, considering the gravity of the allegations and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's innocence or non-involvement in future offenses, rejected the plea for anticipatory bail. The decision was based on the seriousness of the accusations, the need for custodial interrogation to uncover more laundered funds, and the absence of grounds to believe in the petitioner's innocence or non-involvement in further offenses while on bail.