2018 (8) TMI 364 - HC - Money Laundering

Offense under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Held that - The allegations against the petitioner are of having received cash to the tune of ₹1,52,50,000/- in various Branches at Delhi and Mumbai withdrawn from various companies of SBL group in cash and thereafter by rotating it through various shell companies received the money in RAG Buildtech owned by his son, shares whereof were then inflated and from the money infused in RAG Buildtech various properties, movable and immovable, were purchased. Charge-sheet for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act is yet to be filed by the CBI. As per the mandate of Section 44 of PMLA, the trial in the scheduled offence and the complaint filed by the respondent is to be conducted jointly. Co-accused Gagan Dhawan has been granted bail by the learned ASJ on the ground that the case is based on documentary evidence and all the bank transactions are recorded which cannot be erased or tampered with by the influence of Gagan Dhawan and the Enforcement Directorate has already attached the plot of Gagan Dhawan worth ₹1.17 crores situated in Gurgaon and that he remained in custody for 62 days. Offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 PMLA entails a minimum punishment for 3 years imprisonment which may extend to 7 years imprisonment. The petitioner is in custody since 12th January, 2018. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the condition that - (i) the petitioner will not leave country without prior permission of the Court concerned; (ii) in case of change of residential address the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit; and (iii) the petitioner will not directly or indirectly influence the witnesses or interfere in the further investigation.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) based on allegations of receiving cash payments, diversion of money, and purchasing properties through illicit means.

Analysis:

1. Bail Application: The petitioner sought bail in a case recorded under the PMLA, stemming from a FIR by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was accused of receiving cash payments from a company and diverting funds. Despite being named in the FIR, the petitioner was not arrested or charge-sheeted in the CBI case.

2. Investigation and Allegations: The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint against the petitioner and his company for alleged financial irregularities. The petitioner was accused of receiving cash payments during his tenure as a bank director and diverting funds to purchase properties through his company. The investigation revealed the flow of money through shell companies and its utilization for various purchases.

3. Defence and Counter-arguments: The petitioner's defense highlighted being an independent director and denied direct involvement in the alleged offenses. The defense argued that the petitioner's arrest in the CBI case was pending, and the trial for both offenses should be conducted jointly. The respondent, on the other hand, presented evidence of cash payments and alleged the gravity of the offense as reasons to deny bail.

4. Judicial Decision: After considering the arguments, the court noted the evidence against the petitioner, including cash transactions and property purchases. The court observed that the charge-sheet in the CBI case was pending, and the trial for both offenses should be conducted jointly. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference.

5. Conclusion: The court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing necessary bonds and complying with specified conditions regarding travel, address changes, and witness interference. The judgment balanced the seriousness of the allegations with the legal provisions for bail, emphasizing the need for joint trial proceedings and adherence to bail conditions.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal nuances, evidence, arguments, and judicial reasoning involved in the judgment related to the bail application under the PMLA based on financial irregularities and money laundering allegations.