Money laundering case: Delhi court to deliver verdict against Satyendra Jain, others tomorrow


The Rouse Avenue court today said in its order that politician Aam AadmiParty and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain’s bail order was ready, but there is more to be seen in the money laundering case. money against co-defendants Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.

The Court said it has not yet drafted the order for one of the defendants in the case which was filed by the Enforcement Branch.

The court said it would deliver judgment tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Earlier, Rouse Avenue Court Special Judge Vikas Dhull was hearing arguments from Jain’s attorney, Lead Counsel N Hariharan, seeking bail in a money laundering case filed by the Directorate of application (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. (PMLA).

Hariharan said Jain’s only flaw was becoming a minister and joining public life. Other than that, there was nothing in the case that could be attributed to the leader of the AAP.

Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjli Goel was hearing submissions on Jain’s bail plea and as the case was in its final stages, ED requested the transfer of the case alleging the judge’s bias.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case against Jain under sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct of a public official) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1988 Corruption.

CBI alleged that Jain acquired movable property on behalf of various people between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.

The leader of the AAP was subsequently arrested on April 5 by the ED on the basis of its investigation into the aspect of money laundering under PMLA.

ED had also attached real estate properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd, and others under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA).

The law enforcement agency alleged that these companies, which were ‘Jain owned and controlled’, received accommodation inflows amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against money transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators via a hawala route.

Jain’s lawyer denied the claim, arguing that he was nowhere connected to the companies’ transactions, as he was only a “minority” shareholder in them. He added that a minority shareholder cannot exercise control over the companies.

According to Hariharan, a director was only an agent of the company. He said the companies’ shareholding model showed that even in the best possible scenario, ED could only attribute a sum of Rs 59 lakh to Jain, adding that the notional value attributed to Jain was an “exercise foreign to the law”,

Referring to the amended provision of Section 45 of the PMLA after the recent verdict in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India, Hariharan argued that even if one added Rs six lakh according to the shareholding of another company named in the deal, the total notional value, according to their own case, would still be less than Rs one crore.

Therefore, it would fall under the proviso of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), he added.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, will make submissions on November 5, as defense arguments concluded today.

The case was originally filed by CBI against Jain over allegations that he acquired movable property on behalf of various people between 2015 and 2017, for which he could not give a satisfactory answer.

The case was registered under section 13(2) (criminal misconduct of an official) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

Previous Fitch downgrades Telecom Italia to 'BB-'
Next Financing options for small businesses