Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court saw rebuttals by the advocate for co-accused in the bail hearing of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendra Jain in a money laundering case. 

Advocate Sushil Kumar Gupta appearing for co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, two aides of the Delhi Minister, on Thursday argued, that to establish an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has to establish ‘proceeds of crime’, as it is the “core” of the act. Relying on Apex Court’s judgment in the Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary's case, Gupta contended that there should be a clear nexus between the proceeds of crime and property acquired, otherwise their case falls apart.

Gupta argues that the proceeds of crime in the present case are disproportionate assets (DA), which is the “scheduled offence”, but the ED is silent on it. He argues, “It is only on their whims and fancies they are after us”. He further argues “before amounting to money laundering, there has to be a scheduled offence. Where is it?”

He argues that once the “accommodation entries” has got no connection with the ‘proceeds of crime” there is no case made out, and therefore, it is nowhere connected with Satyendra Jain being a public servant. Gupta argues that the ED just wants to "harass Satyendra Jain, as he is a “political figure”. Furthermore, he argued that the conversion of “Black money” to “white” is not money laundering.

He further asserted that: “cognizance is always taken of the offence and not of the offender”. “Blindly relying on the statements of the witnesses, who are themselves involved in the money laundering (as per the agency), is not fair, and their statements are not credible enough, as the same would have been taken under force or cohesion, and this will be clear only when the trial begins”, Gupta argued.

Furthermore, he contended that the allegations made by ASG Raju that “Jain has misled the investigating agency” cannot be taken, as the witnesses cannot be completely relied on.

Gupta therefore, contended that the ED is leading a “Biased investigation”, and that there are “no proceeds of crime” and “no scheduled offence”. He added, that the investigating agency “was putting words in the mouth of the witnesses”, by every time referring to all the companies as “Satyendra Jain’s company”. Furthermore, he argued that no one bothered to ask the witnesses which company is actually Satyendra Jain’s.

Conclusively, Gupta argued that Satyendra Jain did not have “control” over my (Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain’s) company. He further argued that a person who could not buy shares of his own company, how can he be held as the “Controller” of my company. In light of the twin conditions laid down under Section 45 of PMLA, given in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India by the Apex Court:

• that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and
• that he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Gupta concluded his submissions before the court and appealed to kindly grant bail to Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in the case.

After hearing Advocate Sushil Gupta’s counter-arguments, Special Judge Vikas Dhull adjourned the bail hearing and scheduled it for November 11, 2022, for Senior Advocate N. Hariharan to rebuttal on behalf of Satyendra Jain.

On Wednesday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the ED concluded his arguments opposing AAP Minister Satyendar Jain’s bail plea in a money-laundering case. Referring to the CCTV footage submitted by the ED last week on the “VIP treatment", ASG Raju stated, “Kindly look at the conduct of Jain in jail, he is clearly abusing power sitting in jail.” He further contended that Jain is either in hospital for some treatment or sitting and enjoying in Tihar jail. “Jail is not a place for enjoyment.”

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

It was 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. He was arrested on May 31.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyendra Kumar Jain & Ors.