Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Thursday sought response from the Directorate of Enforcement within 2 weeks on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendra Jain in connection with a money laundering case.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Jain submitted, “We are seeking a regular bail in the present case, post dismissal of an application by the trial court”. He contended that for a ‘predicate offence to take place in a disproportionate assets case, there is a cheque period (February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017) within which the offence is supposed to have been committed.

Hariharan submitted that on August 30, 2017, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered under Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) in pursuance of this predicate offence, and on December 3, 2018, the charge sheet was filed, and on July 6, 2019, he was granted regular bail (on summons) by the Special Judge (CBI).

The Senior Counsel further stated that "after five years down the line, I (Jain) am arrested on May 31, 2022, in the ECIR and remanded to police custody. Since June 13, 2022, I have in judicial custody in the present case." Furthermore, he submitted that Jain moved his first bail application to the ECIR on June 18 which was rejected on the ground that investigations were not complete, otherwise, he stated, that the bail order stated that “I (Jain) am not at Flight Risk”.

Hariharan stated, “Broadly, I have given you how we have reached here, in relation to this appeal, My endeavor during the course of argument of this bail application…is to show you that there are no proceeds of crime in this case, in fact as far as predicate offence is concerned, there has not been committed predicate offence. It is all based on a notional basis”.

He added, “If no predicate offence is committed, even as per latest observations of Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary’s case, the offence in relation to PMLA of proceeds of crime being generated will not lie in the mouth of the ED. This will be the endeavor.” Furthermore, Hariharan contended that the trial court’s order goes out to make a new case which has been set up by the Special Judge.

Taking note of the submissions, the single judge bench issued notice to the ED and listed the matter for December 20.

Special Judge Vikas Dhull of the Rouse Avenue Court on November 17, denied bail to Jain in the money laundering case.

The bail application filed by Satyendra Jain pertained to his arrest in a Money Laundering case in which he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 31, 2022.

In April, ED attached assets worth Rs. 4.81 crores linked to Jain and his family. ED initiated an investigation based on an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Jain and others under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is alleged that when Jain was a public servant, companies owned and controlled by him received up to Rs. 4.81 crores from shell companies through the Hawala network.

Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement