2023 (9) TMI 1144 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail - Practicing chartered accountant (CA) - assisting the co-accused to convert the tainted money into untainted money and connived in the laundering thereto - petition dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioner has failed to meet the threshold of Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT - As per the law laid down that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , it has inter alia been held that at the stage of considering the bail application, the court is expected to consider the question from the perspective of whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. It was further held that no definite finding is required whether the accused has not committed an offence under the Act. It is a well settled proposition of law that the jurisprudence of bail lays down that the liberty of a person should not be interfered with except in exceptional cases. At this stage, the court has to examine the case on the scale of broad probabilities. The apparent role of the petitioner is filing of the income tax return. It is a settled a proposition that at the stage of consideration of the bail even under PMLA the court has only to see the preponderance of probability. The court at this stage is not required to record the positive finding of acquittal. Such finding can be recorded only after recording and appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court. The case of the petitioner that Anubrata Mondal is shifting his blame on the petitioner only to save himself has to be tested during the course of the trial. Generally speaking, the professional would act on the instructions of his client. However, whether he has gone beyond his professional duty is something which is required to be seen and examined during the trial. The allegation against the present petitioner is not that he has done something which was beyond his scope of profession i.e. indulging in some activities which are totally unconnected with the chartered accountancy. The plea of the petitioner that he has acted on the basis of information and record provided to him cannot be rejected outrightly at this stage. This is required to be tested during the course of the trial. It has repeatedly been held that stage of bail cannot convert into a mini trial. It is also pertinent to mention here that that the court has only to take a prima facie view on the basis of the material on record. The petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the terms and conditions imposed - application admitted.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 r/w Section 167(2) and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA.
3. Examination of the petitioner's professional conduct and alleged involvement in money laundering.
4. Compliance with bail conditions and legal precedents.

Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:

1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 r/w Section 167(2) and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed for bail in CT Case No. 13/2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2023, which dismissed his bail application primarily because he failed to meet the threshold of Section 45 of PMLA. The trial court held that the petitioner actively assisted the co-accused in laundering money and thus, his role was significant in the alleged crime.

2. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA:
The trial court rejected the petitioner's contention that his involvement was limited to Rs. 27-28 lakhs, emphasizing that the case should be viewed in a holistic manner, touching at least Rs. 48 Crores attributed to the co-accused. The court also dismissed the plea that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner, noting that the petitioner had regularly appeared before the ED and his statements were recorded.

3. Examination of the petitioner's professional conduct and alleged involvement in money laundering:
The petitioner, a chartered accountant, argued that his professional activities were limited to filing income tax returns for Anubrata Mondal and his family, and he acted based on the information provided by them. The ED, however, contended that the petitioner managed finances related to proceeds of crime, created benami assets, and laundered money through various companies. The petitioner's involvement in filing ITRs for individuals with unexplained income further implicated him in concealing proceeds of crime.

4. Compliance with bail conditions and legal precedents:
The court considered various legal precedents, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain, emphasizing that at the bail stage, the court should examine the case on the scale of broad probabilities without requiring a definitive finding of guilt. The court acknowledged the petitioner's professional role and noted that whether he exceeded his professional duties would be determined during the trial. The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, including surrendering his passport, residing at his usual place, appearing before the court as required, and not communicating with co-accused or witnesses.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with a surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions to ensure his compliance with the legal process and prevent interference with the investigation. The court emphasized that this decision should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

← Previous Next →