Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Satyendar Jain on Thursday before the Delhi High Court argued that only the cheque period should be taken into consideration & proceeds of crime will be generated only after an offence has been committed. "I'll expand on this aspect, in due course", he submitted.

"Scheduled offence is not made out", the Senior Counsel argued. Hariharan argued that all the shares were acquired in 2008-10 when Satyendar Jain was not a public servant. Relying on Vijay Madan Lal's Judgment of the apex court he argued that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cannot make a case on a "Notional Basis".

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma listed the matter for further hearing on January 17.

On December 1, the single-judge bench issued a notice and sought a response from the ED within two weeks on the plea filed by Jain in connection in the present matter.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Jain had submitted, “We are seeking a regular bail in the present case, post dismissal of an application by the trial court”. He had contended that for a ‘predicate offence to take place in a disproportionate assets case, there is a cheque period (February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017) within which the offense is supposed to have been committed.

Hariharan had submitted that on August 30, 2017, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered under Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) in pursuance of this predicate offense, and on December 3, 2018, the charge sheet was filed, and on July 6, 2019, he was granted regular bail (on summons) by the Special Judge (CBI).

The Senior Counsel had further stated that "after five years down the line, I (Jain) am arrested on May 31, 2022, in the ECIR and remanded to police custody. Since June 13, 2022, I have in judicial custody in the present case." Furthermore, he submitted that Jain moved his first bail application to the ECIR on June 18 which was rejected on the ground that investigations were not complete, otherwise, he stated, that the bail order stated that “I (Jain) am not at Flight Risk”.

Hariharan had stated, “Broadly, I have given you how we have reached here, in relation to this appeal, My endeavor during the course of argument of this bail application…is to show you that there are no proceeds of crime in this case, in fact as far as predicate offence is concerned, there has not been committed predicate offence. It is all based on a notional basis”.

He had added, “If no predicate offence is committed, even as per latest observations of Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary’s case, the offence in relation to PMLA of proceeds of crime being generated will not lie in the mouth of the ED. This will be the endeavor.” Furthermore, Hariharan had contended that the trial court’s order goes out to make a new case which has been set up by the Special Judge.

Background:

Special Judge Vikas Dhull of the Rouse Avenue Court on November 17, denied bail to Jain in the money laundering case.

The bail application filed by Satyendra Jain pertained to his arrest in a Money Laundering case in which he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 31, 2022.

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

It is 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.

Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement