Aastha Thakur
Published on: 17 November 2022 at 15:21 IST
The Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi dismissed the bail application of Aam Aadmi Party member Satyendra Jain, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.
The matter came before Special Judge Vikas Dhull. He also denied bail to co-accused in the matter, named Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain.
The case was earlier pending before Special Judge Geetanjali Goel, but the matter was transferred to Special Judge Vikas Dhull when the investigation agency filed a plea seeking transfer of the proceedings.
The plea was sanction by the Principal District & Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta. This order was contested by Satyendra Jain before the Delhi High Court. However, his plea was dismissed in September on grounds that the apprehension of ED was not flimsy or unreasonable.
Background of Case
ED attached properties worth Rs. 4.81 crore in April of this year against Satyendra Jain that belonged to five firms and other entities.
In 2017, the CBI accused Jain and others of laundering money through three companies—Paryas Infosolution, Indo Metalimpex, Akinchan Developers, and Mangalayatan Projects—to the tune of Rs 11.78 crore from 2010 to 2012 and Rs 4.63 crore from 2015 to 2016. He was appointed as minister in the Delhi government that time.
Jain is said to have recruited entry operators for many shell firms with offices in Kolkata for lodging entries through his colleagues. After “layering” the funds through shell companies, the entry operators reportedly redirected the funds in the form of investments through shares in Jain-linked companies.
According to the ED case, which is based on the CBI FIR, Jain allegedly signed conveyance deeds for Prayas Infosolutions to purchase agricultural lands in 2011 and 2012. The central agency has also claimed that the land was subsequently transferred to relatives of Jain’s friends, who denied being privy of the transfers.
Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 30 and is currently under judicial custody.
The court had reserved the order on November 11. A copy of the order is awaited.