Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Wednesday framed charges against Former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councilor Tahir Hussain in a money laundering case. Hussain pleaded not guilty and opted for trials.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of the Karkardooma Court, Delhi ordered, “a charge for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is framed against accused Tahir Hussain, read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

Accordingly, Court listed the matter for evidence on February 10, 2023.

Recently, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court, Delhi had held that Hussain and ten others accused in the 2020 north-east Delhi Riots case had an "objective to harm Hindus in their body and property". The Judge had noted that several people gathered at Tahir Hussain's house, some of them were armed with firearms, petrol bombs were also arranged, and stones were kept in his house in sacks and other containers. All of these tactics were used to specifically target Hindus, he had stated.

The court had then also noted that every member of the mob assembled there helped to achieve the goal to target "Hindus".

".... preparations, as well as the use of this house as a base, demonstrate that the members of this mob were acting out of a prior meeting of their minds and with a clear-cut goal in mind to 'harm Hindus' in any way possible", the court had said.

In November, Justice Anu Malhotra of the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by Hussain seeking quashing and setting aside of charges framed against him by the trial court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act's provisions in connection with another case over the North East Delhi Riots 2020.

During the hearing, Advocates Naveen Malhotra, Nilansh Malhotra and Ritvik Malhotra appearing for Tahir Hussain had contended that ‘proceeds of crime’ is the core of an offence under the PMLA and there was no evidence to prove that Hussain earned something from the proceeds of crime, which was required for it to be an offence. Therefore, he had argued that the framing of charges could not take place in this case. Malhotra had argued, “Where is the property earned?” He had contended that Tahir Hussain has not earned anything directly or indirectly. He had further argued that not a single property is attached to Hussain and that the GST violations, Tax violation is not proceeds of crime under the PMLA.

On the contrary, Advocate Zoheb Hossain for the Enforcement Directorate had opposed the application and had contended that Section 120B of IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) is an independent offence and that Hussain in conspiracy generated and used the money for the purpose of riots. Zoheb had argued that “conspiracy was hatched” and there is a clear case made out against Tahir Hussain. Furthermore, he had added that criminal conspiracy is a “stand-alone offense”. Zoheb had argued that at the stage of framing of charges, the agency has enough evidence on record, hence, Tahir Hussain’s plea does not stand. It was further submitted that the bank accounts allegedly used by Hussain would also be a property under S. 8(5) of PMLA.

On November 3, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of the Karkardooma Court had framed charges against the former AAP Councilor under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA in the other case. The court had also denied him statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

Case Title: ED v. Tahir Hussain