9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 956 - HC - Money LaunderingBail plea in a money laundering case - white collar crimes/economic offenders - HELD THAT - Tentacles of the crime are so widespread and it is not that the investigation can be segregated in respect of one or the other accused, the entire crime committed is indeed interlinked. The economic offences like the one in hand constitute a class part and they are not like other criminal cases and need to be visited with a different approach. Therefore taking note of huge magnitude of conspiracy angle qua petitioner, it would be premature to jump to the conclusion that investigation in this case in respect of the petitioner is complete, rather huge amount of money is still to be trailed. As gone through the diary of proceedings handed over by the ld. ASG during the course of the arguments and the perusal of the same shows that despite being in J.C. how the petitioner is still ruling the roost and is in constant touch with co-accused and interfering with the investigation. So when this is the clout of the petitioner that despite being in J.C. he is managing things then one can very well imagine what he can do once out on bail. The Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT while dealing with the bail plea in a money laundering case, has again reiterated that white collar crimes/economic offenders have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge amount of public funds and this should be viewed seriously and such offences ought to be considered as grave offences. Pertinently, the bail plea in the case of Rohit Tandon (Supra) was repelled by the Supreme Court while observing that duty of the Court at the bail stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the broad probabilities of the case - this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of money laundering under PMLA, 2002. 3. Predicate offences under IPC and PC Act. 4. Proceeds of crime and their integration. 5. Risk of absconding and tampering with evidence. 6. Gravity of economic offences and their impact on investigation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner filed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in ECIR No. HQ/13/2017. The application was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner argued that the charge sheet for the predicate offences had not been filed, implying the case rested on the presumption of the commission of scheduled offences and the generation of “proceeds of crime.” The petitioner’s counsel cited several judgments to support the bail plea, emphasizing that the petitioner was not a flight risk as his passport was seized, and he had been in judicial custody since January 31, 2019. However, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, considering the gravity of the offences and the ongoing investigation. 2. Allegations of Money Laundering under PMLA, 2002: The petitioner was accused of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that the petitioner, using his proximity to government officials, facilitated favorable air traffic rights for foreign airlines like Emirates, Air Arabia, and Qatar Airways. In return, these airlines made substantial payments to entities controlled by the petitioner, amounting to USD 272,01,93,483. The proceeds of crime were transferred through various Indian and offshore entities and integrated into acquiring assets like Hotel Holiday Inn, Aerocity, Delhi. 3. Predicate Offences under IPC and PC Act: The predicate offences involved Sections 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR alleged that officials from the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Air India, in conspiracy with private airlines, abused their positions to grant profitable routes to private airlines, causing significant losses to Air India. The petitioner was accused of exploiting his relationships with public servants to secure these favorable outcomes for his clients. 4. Proceeds of Crime and Their Integration: The investigation revealed that the proceeds of crime were funneled through various entities controlled by the petitioner, including M/s Asia Field Ltd. and M/s Gilt Assets Management Ltd. The funds were eventually used to acquire assets like Hotel Holiday Inn. The ED traced USD 127,69,23,483 to M/s Asia Field Ltd., with further investigations ongoing to trace the remaining USD 144,32,70,000 received by M/s Gilt Assets Management Ltd. 5. Risk of Absconding and Tampering with Evidence: The respondent argued that the petitioner was an influential individual with a history of evading the law. Despite being in judicial custody, the petitioner was alleged to be in constant touch with co-accused and interfering with the investigation. The court noted the petitioner’s son had taken citizenship in Antigua and Barbuda, indicating a potential risk of absconding. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s release on bail could jeopardize the ongoing investigation and lead to the disposal of proceeds of crime. 6. Gravity of Economic Offences and Their Impact on Investigation: The court acknowledged the gravity of the economic offences, noting that they involved deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public funds. The Supreme Court’s stance in similar cases was cited, emphasizing that economic offences should be viewed seriously and treated as grave offences. The court concluded that the magnitude of the conspiracy and the ongoing investigation warranted a different approach, and the petitioner’s release on bail would be premature and detrimental to the investigation. Conclusion: The court, considering the gravity of the offences, the ongoing investigation, and the petitioner’s potential to interfere with the investigation, dismissed the bail application. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of economic offences and the need for a stringent approach in dealing with such cases.
|
