2023 (2) TMI 993 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - it is alleged that petitioner was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in transferring of funds of M/s. PACL through various companies and making transactions of purchasing of properties etc. - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner was a downstream investor of funds hence his submission he did not knowingly became a party to money laundering cannot be brushed aside lightly. Even otherwise he allegedly was a nominee non-executive director since 11.09.2012 in M/s. DDPL and M/s. Unicorn and prior to 11.09.2012 had nothing to do with these companies; further substantial amount received in the companies of petitioner was returned in the manner alleged above and even Gurmeet Singh s statement would show the petitioner represented the 25 companies were not associated with M/s. PACL. What weigh the statements under Section 50 of PMLA would carry at the end of trial cannot be tested at the stage of bail, more importantly when the intermediary companies were never made an accused in the present ECIR. The ultimate effect of their non-inclusion would be seen at the conclusion of trial. Further considering the order dated 03.09.2020 wherein all remaining co-accused in this ECIR were admitted to bail, this Court has every reason to say the petitioner has passed the test of broad probabilities. Admittedly twin conditions of Section 45 does not put an absolute restraint on grant of bail or require a positive finding qua guilt. The petitioner herein is admitted on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.25.00 lacs with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject t conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the applicant.
2. Allegations of money laundering and handling proceeds of crime.
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 45 of PMLA.
4. Examination of past judicial orders and their relevance to the current case.
5. Assessment of the applicant's involvement and knowledge of the alleged crimes.
6. Evaluation of the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
7. Consideration of the applicant's period of custody and conditions for bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail to the Applicant:
The petition was filed for the grant of bail to the applicant, who has been in judicial custody for eight months. The court noted that the applicant was not named in the ECIR and had been cooperating with the respondent since 2016. All other main accused in the scheduled offense and money laundering had either been granted bail or not arrested. The court considered the applicant's cooperation, lack of evidence tampering, and the documentary nature of the evidence in custody.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering and Handling Proceeds of Crime:
The respondent alleged that the applicant was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime, transferring funds of M/s. PACL through various companies, and making transactions to purchase properties. The respondent provided detailed transactions involving significant sums transferred to and from various companies, including M/s. DDPL, M/s. Unicorn, and others. The applicant was accused of handling these proceeds and having conclusive knowledge of the layers of crime.

3. Compliance with the Provisions of Section 45 of PMLA:
The court examined the applicability of Section 45 of PMLA, which imposes conditions for granting bail, including the requirement for the Public Prosecutor's opposition and the court's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit an offense while on bail. The court referred to multiple judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India, to highlight that Section 45 does not impose an absolute restraint on granting bail and that the court must consider broad probabilities.

4. Examination of Past Judicial Orders and Their Relevance to the Current Case:
The court referred to various past judicial orders, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, to assess the legality and implications of the transactions and the applicant's involvement. The court noted that the Rajasthan High Court had declared PACL not to be operating an illegal CIS in 2003, and the Supreme Court had directed SEBI to look into PACL's transactions in 2013, without restraining PACL from receiving investments until 2014.

5. Assessment of the Applicant's Involvement and Knowledge of the Alleged Crimes:
The court examined the applicant's role as a non-executive nominee director and the timing of his involvement with the companies in question. The applicant argued that he did not have knowledge of the tainted funds and that substantial amounts received by his companies had been returned. The court considered the applicant's claim that he was not aware of any litigation or action taken by SEBI against PACL before 2014.

6. Evaluation of the Applicant's Cooperation with the Investigation:
The court noted that the applicant had submitted various documents to the respondent as directed and there were no allegations of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court highlighted that all evidence and information were in the respondent's custody and were documentary in nature.

7. Consideration of the Applicant's Period of Custody and Conditions for Bail:
The court considered the applicant's period of custody of about eight months and the broad probabilities discussed. The court admitted the applicant on bail, subject to conditions including executing a personal bond, surrendering his passport, not leaving the country without permission, cooperating with further investigation, and not tampering with evidence or prejudicing the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence. The court emphasized the need to balance the stringent measures required to combat money laundering with the constitutional right to an expeditious trial.

← Previous Next →