Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 1241 - HC - Money Laundering


Issues Involved
1. Bail Application for the Applicant.
2. Allegations and Evidence against the Applicant.
3. Legal Provisions and Interpretations.
4. Parity with Co-accused.

Issue-wise Comprehensive Details

1. Bail Application for the Applicant:
The applicant sought bail in Session Case No. 1485/2022 under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant was not initially named in the FIRs or ECIR but was later included as an accused in the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).

2. Allegations and Evidence against the Applicant:
The E.D. registered ECIR/LKZO/05/2019 based on multiple FIRs alleging that M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) lured the public into investing in fraudulent schemes. The applicant was implicated based on statements from various individuals, including the main accused Sanjay Bhati, who identified the applicant as a key decision-maker in property purchases and development for GIPL. The E.D. alleged that the applicant received cash payments and was involved in decisions regarding payments from GIPL's accounts. Additionally, funds were transferred to companies controlled by the applicant, purportedly as proceeds of crime.

3. Legal Provisions and Interpretations:
The court examined the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u) of the PMLA and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India. The court emphasized that possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal means may be actionable for tax violations but does not necessarily constitute proceeds of crime under the PMLA. The court also referred to the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Parity with Co-accused:
The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity, noting that co-accused Manoj Tyagi had been granted bail and Vijendra Singh had received anticipatory bail. The court acknowledged that the applicant had been in custody since 21.07.2022, and the trial was likely to be prolonged. The court found that the applicant's role was similar to that of co-accused who had been granted bail, thus entitling the applicant to bail on the ground of parity.

Conclusion
The court allowed the bail application, noting the applicant's entitlement to bail on the grounds of parity, the lack of prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in planning the fraudulent scheme, and the prolonged nature of the trial. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions to ensure compliance with the judicial process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates