Aastha Thakur
Published on: 29 November 2022 at 21:23 IST
Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain has moved Delhi High Court contesting the trail court order denying him bail order in money laundering case filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The former Health Minister of Delhi iwas arrested by ED in May 2022, for offences covered under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Earlier, his bail plea was dismissed by the Special Judge Vikas Dhull.
The bail plea pleaded that the allegations are wrong against him, he never had any vested interest in the said three companies through which money is alleged to have been laundered.
This demolished the entire substratum of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case which is the predicate case for the ED, he claimed.
Further, it has been argued in plea that under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) he is within his rights to apply for bail.
It has been alleged by the Enforcement Directorate that between 2015 and 2016, Jain was a public servant, companies “beneficially owned and controlled by him” received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
The lower court rejected his bail application, observing that bail can’t be granted to the applicant with respect to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
“In the opinion of this court, ‘proceeds of crime’ was the amount which was generated by applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain while working as a Minister in the Government of Delhi, for which he could not satisfactorily account for,” it underlined.
The Court while rejecting the contention of defence counsel about Jain being ‘minority shareholder’ stressed that it’s only concerns is whether the profit earned by the companies were through legitimate reasons or not.
It has been alleged that Jain has used the capital via converting launder money of ₹15 lakh by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators in his company.
Moreover, it was added in the order that, “Jain had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher,”