2016 (10) TMI 464 - HC - Money Laundering

Denial of bail - generation of money in the form of Proceeds of Crime - offence of Money Laundering - Held that - By no stretch of imagination, figures indicate any exorbitant cash credits or income as imputed to the petitioner. Further more, in Para 3 of the reply, the respondent has himself mentioned that the petitioner s flat in Ahinsa Vihar, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi was purchased by him for an amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- only (more than 20 years ago) on 14.6.1995. So, there is nothing unusual or objectionable if the market value of such property over the two decades has appreciated, and so, on these grounds alone, it would be preposterous to conclude that the petitioner has generated any money in the form of Proceeds of Crime . Regarding the specific allegations of his having purchased Pseudoephedrine worth ₹ 68 lacs in 2012, and of having sold it subsequently to one Suresh Kumar alias Mehnga Ram for ₹ 70 lacs, first of all, there is no document to support the allegations of such transactions, and more importantly, there is no explanation or indication by the complainant/respondent whatsoever to show as to in what manner, the petitioner had been engaged in projecting or claiming the aforesaid Proceeds of Crimes as untainted property , which is an essential ingredient to constitute the offence of Money Laundering as defined u/s 3 of the PML Act. For the reasons recorded above, and also in view of the fact that the principal assets of the petitioner in the form of his flat, is already stated to have been attached by the Authorities, we find no justification to deny him bail, as prayed for. His petition is, therefore, allowed. He shall surrender before the Ld. Designated Court below either before the next date fixed, or within a fortnight from the date of this Order, whichever is earlier, after which, he may be granted bail on such terms and conditions, as deemed fit and proper by the Ld. Designated Court.

Summary

Issues:
- Anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.PC in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, claiming false implication by Punjab Police in previous cases. He alleged coercion to give a self-incriminating statement during interrogation while in judicial custody in previous cases. The petitioner was granted bail in the earlier cases by the Court. The current complaint accused him under section 4 read with Section 45(1) of the PML Act.

2. The respondent opposed the bail petition, asserting that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking and had acquired proceeds of crime. The respondent mentioned specific details of transactions and assets allegedly derived from criminal activities. The respondent highlighted the provisional attachment of proceeds of crime under the PML Act and the confirmation of the attachment by the Adjudicating Authority in New Delhi.

3. The respondent further contended that the petitioner owned a flat and had various bank transactions through his business concern. The respondent claimed that the income and assets possessed by the petitioner were proceeds of crimes related to offenses under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. The respondent presented financial details and property ownership to support their allegations.

4. The Court analyzed the submissions from both sides and scrutinized the financial evidence provided by the respondent. The Court noted the cash entries in the petitioner's business account and his income declarations in Income Tax Returns for several years. The Court found that the financial figures did not indicate exorbitant cash credits or income as alleged by the respondent. The Court also considered the purchase price of the petitioner's flat, emphasizing the normal appreciation of property value over time.

5. The Court addressed the specific allegations of the petitioner purchasing and selling Pseudoephedrine, emphasizing the lack of supporting documents and explanations from the respondent. The Court highlighted the absence of evidence showing the petitioner's engagement in projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property, a crucial element for money laundering offenses under the PML Act.

6. Based on the analysis of the financial evidence, lack of supporting documentation for allegations, and the attachment of the petitioner's principal assets, the Court concluded that there was no justification to deny the petitioner bail. The Court allowed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail, directing him to surrender before the Designated Court and granting bail on suitable terms and conditions determined by the Designated Court.