Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In the money laundering case before the Delhi High Court, 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, on Tuesday argued that “We have been roped in because the company as per ED belonged to Satyendar Jain”.

The two co-accused were denied bail by the trial court on November 17.

Gupta on behalf of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain, contended, “We are stating that it is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s.” He also argued that the disproportionate assets (DA) case come in only when the entire cheque period gets over. Furthermore, he argued that it is a period-specific offence.

It is to be noted that Gupta had earlier, argued that "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.

Gupta had also contended 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. He had submitted that the present case is a disproportionate assets (DA) case which is a period-specific offence, ending on May 31, 2017.

The single-judge bench was hearing bail pleas of Delhi Minister’s aides and co-accused, Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in a money laundering case. Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench listed the matter for further hearing on February 8.

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