2024 (3) TMI 133 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Bail - money Laundering - Scheduled offence - opening of bank account by forging documents in the name of fictitious persons - scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002 - HELD THAT - The present petitioner namely Tara Chand has created a fictitious person namely Sachin Gupta and also opened three bank accounts in the name of three proprietorship viz M/s Om Traders, M/s Shri Khatu Shyam Traders M/s Anil Kumar Govind Ram, of this fictitious person Sachin Gupta by forged documents. He also opened one bank account in his real name. Further Tara Chand provided these four bank accounts to Neeraj Mittal (Accused no 7) for the purpose of laundering of Proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram. Same bank accounts were also used for routing of other funds. Thus from the investigation it appears that the present petitioner was engaged in the illegal business of money transfer and providing entry, in lieu of commission and on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal used to collect cash from Ram Parkash Bhatia, which was actually the proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram. It has come on record that credit transaction of Rs 122 crores approximately have taken place from the said four bank accounts of Tara Chand and thus same amount was used for routing of funds - Thus, prima-facie, the involvement of the present petitioner in illegal routing of proceeds of crime cannot be denied as he played the vital role in this organized structure/process of illegal routing of proceeds of crime of accused Veerendra Kumar Ram. Scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002 - HELD THAT - Section 45 (ii) of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides twin test. First reason to believe is to be there for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(1), 45(1), 45(2) of PML Act that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime but as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been obtained by the accused person Veerendra Kumar Ram has been routed by this petitioner and he has also withdrawn the money from different fake accounts and transferred it into the account of the accused persons. Now coming in to facts of the present case, it is evident from various paragraphs of the prosecution complaint dated 20.08.2023 that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct. Further, it has come that part of the proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the accused Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant and the said bribe money was getting routed by the help of present petitioner and Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/ relatives. There is no reason to believe by this Court that the petitioner is not involved managing the money said to be proceeds of crime - This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of bail. The petitioner failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail - this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the instant application stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of Money Laundering.
2. Involvement of the Petitioner in the Offence.
3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PML Act for Grant of Bail.

Summary:

Allegation of Money Laundering:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 read with Section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in ECIR Case No.2 of 2023 (A). The case involves offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and related offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The investigation revealed that the accused, Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant, received bribe money, which was routed through various bank accounts by a Delhi-based CA Mukesh Mittal and his associates, including the petitioner.

Involvement of the Petitioner in the Offence:
The petitioner, Tara Chand, was found to have opened multiple bank accounts using forged documents under the fictitious name Sachin Gupta. These accounts were used to launder proceeds of crime. The investigation disclosed that Tara Chand collected cash from Ram Parkash Bhatia on instructions from Neeraj Mittal and transferred funds to various accounts, eventually reaching the accounts of Genda Ram. The petitioner was involved in managing these transactions and received commissions for his role. The prosecution complaint detailed the petitioner's direct involvement in laundering approximately Rs. 122 crores through these accounts.

Compliance with Section 45 of the PML Act for Grant of Bail:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly Section 45, which imposes twin conditions for granting bail: (i) reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to several judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., emphasizing the stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet these conditions, given the gravity of the offence and the substantial evidence of his involvement in money laundering activities.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner did not make out a special case for bail, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The application for bail was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the views expressed were prima facie for the consideration of the bail matter only.