2022 (12) TMI 141 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Hawala transactions - proceeds of crime - predicate offence/scheduled offence or not - allegations are that the accused on the basis of forged documents, obtained illegally, a total number of 263 Reliance WLL PCO phone connections which were activated during the period between 18.04.2011 and 30.07.2011 and through the said phone connections, earned illegal money by making calls on certain pre-fixed international numbers and putting on hold such calls in the manner described in the complaint. HELD THAT - The role of Shri Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui was found to be clearly covered by the definition of offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PML Act. The proceeds of crime was projected in the form of two immovable properties and bank balance available in various accounts in which proceeds was received from abroad - Shri Tabish Mansoor was found to be involved in running of 112 out of 263 numbers of Reliance WLL phones in association with Shri Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui and he was found to be in possession of proceeds of crime in cash worth Rs.10,20,000/- which was concealed by him for the purpose of money laundering. Rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA have to be applied while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. This court is of the view that there is sufficient documentary evidence available on record to substantiate involvement of the accused-applicants in the offence of money laundering. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matters of bail. The proceedings of predicate offence and that of money laundering are separate and mere grant of bail in predicate offence does not become basis to grant of bail in case of money laundering. Details of proceeds of crime have been mentioned in the complaint which would disclose crores of rupees was transferred in the accounts of the accused-applicants and they utilized the said proceeds of crime for their own purposes or some other purposes - Trial court has noted that the accused-applicants have been avoiding due process of the court and, therefore, their anticipatory bail applications had been rejected by the learned trial court. These applications for anticipatory bail are hereby rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Rejection of anticipatory bail applications.
3. Allegations of money laundering and involvement in criminal activities.

Analysis:
1. The accused-applicants filed applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite previous petitions being dismissed by the court, they sought relief through an S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The accused-applicants subsequently moved a discharge application, which was rejected. The accused-applicants had not actively participated in the legal proceedings, and cognizance was taken back in 2014.

2. The case involved allegations of money laundering and criminal activities related to obtaining illegal phone connections and making international calls to earn money. The accused were accused of using forged documents to obtain phone connections and earning commissions through holding international calls for extended periods. The accused were alleged to have received substantial amounts through illegal means, including hawala transactions and foreign money transfers.

3. The court found sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the accused-applicants' involvement in money laundering offenses. It was noted that economic offenses require a distinct approach in bail matters, and the proceedings for predicate offenses and money laundering are separate. The court highlighted the significant amounts involved in the proceeds of crime and the accused-applicants' avoidance of the legal process as reasons for rejecting their anticipatory bail applications. The trial court had also previously rejected their bail applications due to their evasion of due process.

In conclusion, the court rejected the anticipatory bail applications of the accused-applicants based on the evidence of their involvement in money laundering activities and their avoidance of legal proceedings.