Court denies pre-arrest bail to firm owners accused of illegal streaming of IPL matches

Mumbai, Feb 12 (PTI) A special PMLA court here denied anticipatory bail to owners of a partnership company, accused of receiving part of proceeds of crime generated through unauthorised streaming of Viacom18's OTT platform content and IPL matches.

The partnership firm Maa Sharda Sales has been run by the accused Santosh Singh, Mukesh Kumar, and Monu Kanskar, since May 2023.

The order, passed by special PMLA judge A C Daga on Tuesday, noted that though the firm came into existence after the FIR, "the fact remains that after the generation of proceeds of crime from the predicate offence, if anyone handles or deals with it, is guilty of the offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)".

The Enforcement Directorate alleged that Rs 13 crore, generated from the unauthorised streaming, has been transferred to the firm's bank account.

The ED's case stems from an FIR registered by nodal Cyber Police under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code for cheating and under the Information Technology Act.

Viacom18's anti-piracy technical team in October 2021 purportedly discovered that most of its paid content was being shown without authorisation on various apps.

Viacom18 currently holds the digital (internet) rights for live telecasting IPL matches. However, owners of certain apps illegally put up hoardings in Mumbai and broadcast the matches for free through their platforms between March 31 and April 7, 2023.

Viacom18 and its OTT platform allegedly suffered financial losses of more than Rs 100 crore between October 2021 and April 2023.

The ED froze Maa Sharda Sales's bank account during the investigation.

The ED said the bank account was utilised for receiving illicit funds exceeding Rs 13 crore from July 2023 to June 2024.

The anti-money laundering agency further submitted that the forensic financial analysis and funds flow of the partnership firm's bank account "indicates that all collected funds were systematically transferred to one or two specific bank accounts, pointing towards a structured attempt to launder proceeds of crime".

The accused claimed they were innocent and falsely implicated.

The partnership firm was set up after the FIR (predicate offence) was registered and the accused had no connection with the crime, they claimed through their lawyers.

The judge stated that ample material on record suggests that part of the proceeds of crime was transferred to the firm's account.

"The applicants have not cooperated with the investigation and have not disclosed the source where the part of the proceeds of crime has gone from their accounts," the court observed.

Unless an opportunity for custodial interrogation is given, the ED won't know the end-user of proceeds of crime which will hamper the investigation, the court said, while rejecting the plea of the accused. PTI AVI NSK

Source: PTI