Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Advocate Sushil Kumar Gupta appearing for co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, the two aides of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendar Jain has concluded his submissions before a bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Delhi High Court in bail hearing in the money laundering case.

Gupta on behalf of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain contended in the present case that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is just investigating the predicate offence not the money laundering case. He argued that ED has assumed there is a disproportionate assets (DA) case, but this cannot be their case, the agency needs to first prove that there is a scheduled offence.

Furthermore, relying on the Vijay MadanLal Judgment of the Apex Court, Gupta contended that "the role which the ED has assigned to us (Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain) in the present case should be different from the CBI case, but the ED has charged us under the same provisions".

While concluding, Gupta argued that the “Proceeds of crime is the core” that needed to be established in the present case by ED to have a case against Ankush and Vaibhav Jain.

The single-judge bench was hearing bail pleas of Delhi Minister’s aides and co-accused, Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in the money laundering case. 

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Sharma adjourned the matter. The single-judge bench listed the matter for hearing the submissions of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju for ED on February 9.

It is to be noted that Gupta, on behalf of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain, on Tuesday had argued that “we have been roped in because the company as per ED belonged to Satyendar Jain”. He had contended, “We are stating that it is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s.” He had also argued that the disproportionate assets (DA) case come in only when the entire cheque period gets over. Furthermore, he had contended that it is a period-specific offence.

Earlier, Gupta has argued, "Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with the company. All the companies belong to us”. He had contended, “We were having an effective position in the company. We had sent the money/cash to Calcutta Based companies". He had further argued that there are no proceeds of crime in the present case, it is generated only at the end of the cheque period (May 13, 2015) as per the CBI chargesheet. “The whole fulcrum of a PMLA case lies on the proceeds of crime”, he had stressed.

Notably on January 25, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Satyendar Jain had concluded his arguments in his bail hearing in the present case.

Hariharan had argued that the money was Ankush and Vaibhav Jain’s, and it came back to their account without any premium. “Where is Satyendar Jain involved? How is the money related to me?” he had said while adding, “My (Satyendar Jain’s) assets before and after the cheque period remained the same."

Hariharan had also argued that the assets of the company cannot be the assets of Satyendar Jain as the company is of Ankush and Vaibhav. He had contended that this case is going on the assumption that Satyendar Jain is guilty. "Look at the nature of the interrogation (of the witnesses by ED). It can't be assumptive”, he had argued.

Case Title: Ankush Jain v. ED; Vaibhav Jain v. ED