Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for Enamul Haque submitted before the Delhi High Court today that the "link to the proceeds of crime is missing" in the present case.

A bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing the bail plea of Mohd. Emanuel Haque in the case related to cattle smuggling across the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal. He was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Pahwa contended that it is the ED’s duty to establish the foundation facts of the case and that the burden of proof shifts only when the trial starts, and the chargesheet has been filed. He added that for proceeds of crime to be established, there has to be some link, either by banking statements or statements of witnesses; in the present case there are none.

Referring to the chargesheet of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the senior counsel argued that it has no supporting evidence at all. “ED has not identified the hawala channels, no bank statements, no S.50 statements of witnesses, nothing on the money has come from Bangladesh, nothing on how the money was used”, he argued.

Furthermore, he argued that they (ED) have just picked up a certified copy of a diary, which is allegedly of Manoj Sinha (a staff of Haque), wherein certain entries were made of Rs.12.8 crores. “Who has given the money to Manoj Sinha? No evidence is there as to whether that diary is his. No forensics! A lot of assumptions are there. They have just picked up entries from the diary”, the senior counsel argued.

Pahwa also emphasized that the investigating agency only harped on the third stage, without establishing proceeds of crime and scheduled offence in the case. He argued that the ED should satisfy the court on how the proceeds of crime are generated in this case.

Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench listed the matter for further hearing on January 31, 2023.

Last week, Pahwa had submitted that the investigation agency failed to show scheduled offences, and proceeds of crime, and thus, Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) falls flat in the case against Haque. Relying on the Vijay Madanlal Judgment of the Supreme Court, he had argued that money laundering is “not a standalone offence”.

In June, Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the bail plea of Enamul Haque. During the hearing, the counsel for Haque submitted that it is a completely frivolous case as the ED failed to identify any illegal profits in the last two years and no offence of Money laundering could be made out against him.

It was further contended that Haque had spent more than 18 months in custody in three different prosecutions by CBI and ED relating to one transaction and his arrest was illegal and against the principles of law. Furthermore, the counsel for Haque submitted that ED never arrested him while he was in CBI Custody for 14 months, and only after the Supreme Court granted him bail just after a few weeks after his release, ED arrested him.

In April, the trial court had taken cognizance of a chargesheet filed by the ED against former Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Vinay Mishra, his brother Vikas Mishra and Md. Enamul Haque, the alleged kingpin of cattle smuggling ruckus across the India-Bangladesh border. Special Judge CBI Sanjay Garg, while taking cognizance against Haque, had noted that ED had filed a chargesheet under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for the offences under Sections 3 and 70 of PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of PMLA.

In January this year, a division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari of the Supreme Court had granted bail to Haque in the case by CBI.

Case Title: Mohd. Enamul Haque v. Directorate of Enforcement