2021 (4) TMI 507 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking enlargement on Bail - Money Laundering - fraudulent transfer of funds abroad - HELD THAT - As it appears from record, the applicant has floated various bogus entities, several money transactions/transfers, have been traced between the companies/firms owned by applicant and accused companies. Prima-facie, evidence suggests, applicant was managing and controlling financial affairs of accused and beneficiary companies. Whereas, one co-accused was an employee of a beneficiary company and another, was director. Besides, evidence suggests, both co-accused had joined the investigation; soon after they were summoned and co-operated investigation. Reply fled by the Enforcement Directorate suggests, that the investigation is not complete and non-co-operation of the applicant has resulted into lack of financial information available with the respondent in respect of over-seas companies, their bank accounts and financial transaction. Prosecution in their reply has submitted that the applicant has not co-operated in respect of financial information of over-seas companies; that investigation is still going on and there is likelihood of applicant meddling with the investigation, if released on bail. The applicant cannot be released on Bail - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Enlargement on bail in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The applicant sought bail in a money laundering case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Bombay. This was the second bail application, with the first one being rejected earlier. The applicant relied on the bail granted to co-accused individuals and the delay in trial commencement. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in remitting funds abroad illegally through forged documents. The investigation revealed extensive financial transactions involving various companies and individuals, with the applicant being the alleged mastermind behind the money laundering activities. The applicant was declared a proclaimed offender due to non-cooperation in the investigation.

Legal Submissions:
The applicant's counsel argued that the bail granted to other co-accused did not support the applicant's case as the accusations and roles differed significantly. The Enforcement Directorate highlighted the incomplete investigation and lack of cooperation from the applicant, raising concerns about potential interference if released on bail. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a stringent approach towards bail in such cases, citing previous judgments.

Judgment:
Considering the nature of the accusations, the applicant's conduct, and the lack of cooperation in the investigation, the court rejected the bail application. The court referenced a previous case where bail was denied due to similar reasons of non-cooperation. The judgment clarified that the observations made were solely for the bail decision and should not influence the trial proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricacies of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the court's reasoning for rejecting the bail application in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.