Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for the Enforcement Directorate on Thursday informed the Special CBI Court, Rouse Avenue that Aam Aadmi Party Minister, Satyendra Jain was in De-facto Control of shell companies used for alleged Money Laundering, and these two people (Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain), the directors of the company, were just dummies. ASG Raju was arguing against the bail application filed by Satyendra Jain arrested in a Money Laundering case.

Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goyal has listed the matter for further hearing on September 13, 2022, at 2:00 PM. The Court will now hear the contention of the counsel appearing for Satyendra Jain.

The bench was hearing a bail application moved by Aam Aadmi Party Minister Satyendra Jain in a money laundering case registered against him. Satyendra Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case on May 31st this year. In April, ED had attached assets worth Rs 4.81 crore linked to Jain and his family. ED had 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 crore from shell companies through the Hawala network.

Today, ASG Raju, alleging that Satyendra had de-facto control over the shell companies, stated, "There are many cases wherein drivers, etc. have been made shareholders."

ASG Raju argued that on June 27, 2018, Satyendra Jain wrote a letter to the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, in reference to the communication wherein he was required to deposit 20% of the demanded tax. It was said in the letter that, the said 20% can be adjusted from the companies of Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain which shows that it was all his money. "Who would allow it unless one is Satyendra Jain's dummy? They are two sides of the same coin," ASG Raju added.

Furthermore, he submitted that another argument that was made by the applicant is that Jain was threatened to be arrested, he was not threatened to be beaten and all, and I'm my opinion, a threat to be arrested does not amount to coercion or a threat.

Showing the relation between Vaibhav Jain and Satyendra Jain, ASG Raju while relying on Satyendra Jain's wife's statements, said that his wife used to sign documents on instructions of Vaibhav Jain, which means Vaibhav was a person of great trust.

The bench asked ASG Raju to clarify as to who was cheated in the matter, to which ASG Raju submitted that the Company was cheated. In furtherance to this, the bench said, "As per you, the companies are cheated and the same have been made accused in your complaint. So, they were laundering the money through which they themselves have been cheated."

Additionally, ASG Raju arguing in relation to the issue of tampering with evidence is concerned he is influential. Vaibhav Jain retracted his statements. It may not have any effect, but what is relevant is that an attempt has been made for tampering with the evidence, and on this ground the bail should be rejected.

ASG SV Raju has concluded his arguments, additionally, the bench will hear the counsel appearing for Satyendra Jain on September 13.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate Vs. Satyendra Jain