Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Special Judge Vikas Dhull of the Rouse Avenue Court on Friday reserved orders in the bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendra Jain in a money laundering case.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Satyendra Jain today made rebuttals before the court. He contended that till the time the “scheduled offence” is not made out, “proceeds of crime” cannot be made out, and hence, there is no offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He further relied on Apex Court’s judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case and read a portion, “everything that is attached cannot be associated as proceeds of crime”.

Hariharan contended that the criteria the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is using are “alien to law”. He further argued that the property obtained has to be a “derivative of the offence”, and that similarly, possession of the unaccounted property is not a scheduled offence, hence, there cannot be any derivative of ‘proceeds of crime’.

Furthermore, he asserted: that the money of Ankush Jain, Vaibhav Jain was rooted in accommodation entries, it may be a “tax violation” but not a scheduled offence under the PMLA. He argued, “How can it be Satyendra Jain’s money?” Hariharan contended that neither the PMLA provisions nor the Vijay Madanlal judgment state that just because accommodation entries were made, it would amount to proceeds of crime, “Where is the scheduled offence?”, he argued.

The senior counsel argued the ED’s case is “All Assumed” and everything is “Notional”. Referring to ED’s complaint, where the agency said, “Satyendra Jain is an ordinary man, with his wife being a housewife”, Hariharan referred to Jain as, “Gareeb Das”, and concluded his arguments.

Thereafter, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for Jain dealt with ED’s additional affidavit filed last week, wherein CCTV footage showed how he was being provided VIP treatment inside the Tihar Jail. The footage showed an unknown person giving a foot, and body massage to Jain inside his cell in the presence of three other unknown persons. Jain was also being provided with fresh-cut fruits/green salad by some unknown person directly in his cell and the CCTV showed some unknown person sitting with him and having discussions inside his cell.

Mehra contended that the jail has a manual that is followed, and the jail manual itself specifies that every convict should have a bed, and should be given fresh fruits/vegetables. He argued that there is no violation of the Jail Manual and that ED is trying to mislead the court. Furthermore, he concluded by contending that for consideration of bail application, the affidavit filed by the ED cannot be taken.

The court took note of the submissions, reserved the order on the bail application, and scheduled the order to be pronounced on November 16.

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.