Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2020 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 324 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - allegation of depositing demonetized notes of more than ₹ 44 crores in accounts of various persons, including his own, and thereafter transferring it through RTGS into accounts of various other persons at Delhi and Kolkata, mostly in fictitious accounts - HELD THAT - The petitioner is in fact the main player in the whole episode. It was submitted that he is the person who actually brought the demonetized cash to the Bank where it was allowed to be deposited in the accounts of others persons without their knowledge and subsequently, they were transferred through RTGS to other accounts. It was submitted that Shashi Kumar and Rajesh Kumar had given blank cheques to the Bank for being used in case they defaulted in the loan repayment and, having been given in good faith, were misused, in connivance with the Bank officials by using them for RTGS transfer from their accounts to various other accounts. It was submitted that under such circumstances, it was the petitioner who had laundered the demonetized illegal cash into legal cash through the mode of depositing it in connivance with the Bank officials and then getting the same transferred to various other accounts, most of which were fictitious. The petitioner should not be enlarged on bail - application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Bail application in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 2 of 2018 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Allegations of money laundering through depositing demonetized notes and transferring funds via RTGS. 3. Defense's argument of petitioner's innocence based on lack of direct involvement in cash deposits and involvement of other individuals. 4. Prosecution's contention of petitioner being the main player in the money laundering scheme. 5. Interpretation of Section 45 of the Act regarding bail conditions. 6. Consideration of evidence, including petitioner's statement under Section 50 of the Act and CDRs, to determine involvement in the offense. 7. Potential influence on witnesses and public interest considerations in economic offenses. 8. Comparison of roles between the petitioner and another individual involved. 9. Reference to relevant legal precedents and Supreme Court judgments. 10. Decision on bail application and direction for expediting trial proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought bail in connection with a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was accused of depositing demonetized notes exceeding ?44 crores into various accounts and transferring funds through RTGS to fictitious accounts in Delhi and Kolkata. 2. The defense argued that the petitioner was not directly involved in the cash deposits but was implicated based on transactions made by other individuals. They claimed that the petitioner, as the Managing Director of a legitimate business, had his turnover reflected in his accounts and was not aware of the fraudulent activities. 3. The prosecution contended that the petitioner played a central role in the money laundering scheme by depositing demonetized cash into accounts, including his company's, and facilitating transfers to fictitious accounts. They highlighted the petitioner's alleged involvement in laundering illegal cash into legal funds through connivance with bank officials. 4. The court considered the interpretation of Section 45 of the Act concerning bail conditions, emphasizing the need for a high level of satisfaction to grant bail. Reference was made to legal precedents and Supreme Court judgments outlining parameters for bail in economic offenses. 5. Evidence presented, including the petitioner's statement under Section 50 of the Act and call detail records (CDRs), was analyzed to determine the petitioner's complicity in the offense. The prosecution argued that strong evidence, including the petitioner's admission of depositing demonetized notes, indicated his involvement in the crime. 6. Concerns were raised regarding the potential influence of the petitioner on witnesses and the public interest implications of economic offenses. The court deliberated on the petitioner's ability to influence the trial proceedings and the seriousness of the offense in defrauding the public exchequer. 7. The roles of the petitioner and another individual involved were compared, with emphasis on the petitioner's direct actions in making demonetized cash legitimate through bank deposits. Distinctions were drawn between their responsibilities in the money laundering process. 8. Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application based on the arguments presented by the prosecution. However, it directed the expedited conclusion of the trial within a fixed time frame, considering the collected evidence and the public importance of the case. Pre-trial formalities were instructed to be completed to ensure a swift trial process once normal court operations resumed.
|