Read Time: 06 minutes
According to ED, both Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain had knowingly assisted Satyendar Jain by misrepresenting his movable assets as their own. Hence, both the co-accused concealed the true nature of the alleged proceeds of crime.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, October 29, granted bail to Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, co-accused of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendar Kumar Jain in a money laundering case.
The bench presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while pronouncing the order said, “Bail granted, in both cases,”
Notably, on October 18, the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case. The allegations pertained to laundering funds through four companies allegedly associated with him.
During the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Vaibhav Jain, and Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Ankush Jain.
Quoting the decision of the trial court, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal had submitted that Vaibhav Jain was taken into custody on 30th June 2022 and that the current period of sentence was 23 months. He relied on the trial court's Special Judge Vishal Gogne's decision, who observed that the trial had not yet commenced and was expected to take a considerable amount of time to conclude, thus justifying Jain's eligibility for bail. The judge stated, “Considering the delay in trial and long incarceration of 18 months, and the fact that the trial will take long to start, let alone conclude, the accused is favourably suited for the relief”.
Subsequently, Advocate Rebecca John submitted before the bench that in the case of Abhishek Boinpally concerning the liquor scam, the Apex court granted bail to him since all accused were out on bail on grounds of parity.
However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) vehemently opposed the bail plea. According to ED, both Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain had knowingly assisted Satyendar Jain by misrepresenting his movable assets as their own. Hence, both the co-accused concealed the true nature of the alleged proceeds of crime.
ED had initiated an investigation based on an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Satyendra Jain and others under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. As a result, ED attached assets worth Rs. 4.81 crores linked to Jain and his family.
Further, 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.
Background:
The Supreme Court noted that Satyendar Jain, along with Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, his associates, appeared prima facie culpable of the alleged money laundering offences. The court highlighted the accused's failure to satisfy the dual conditions outlined in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for bail.
Prior to this, the High Court had also declined Satyendra Jain's petition for regular bail in the money laundering case. The court cited statements from co-accused implicating Jain as the mastermind behind the operation, expressing concerns over his potential influence and the possibility of tampering with evidence if released on bail.
Case Title: ANKUSH JAIN VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and VAIBHAV JAIN VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT)
Please Login or Register
