The Special Delhi Court has refused to grant bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) politician and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in the money laundering and other offences.
The bail plea of the jailed AAP leader was rejected by the Special Judge Vikas Dhull rejected the bail plea filed by
The bail was asked on the grounds that there was nothing illegal that could be attributed to the case of the leader, the Enforcement Directorate had mentioned that this AAP leader was very influential and has converted “black money into white money” and also tampered with evidence.
The Special Judge Vikas Dhull at Rouse Avenue Court was hearing the arguments made by Jain’s Counsel, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, for the past some time,seeking bail in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Hariharan said Jain’s only fault was that he became a Minister and joined public life. Apart from this, there was nothing in the case, which could be attributed to the AAP leader.
Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjli Goel was hearing the submissions in Jain’s bail plea and while the matter was in its final leg, ED sought transfer of the matter alleging bias on part of the judge.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI alleged that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
The AAP leader was subsequently arrested on April 5 by the ED on the basis of its investigation into the money laundering aspect under PMLA.
ED had also attached immovable 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 other persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The enforcement agency alleged that these companies, which were ‘beneficially-owned and controlled’ by Jain, had received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
Jain’s Counsel denied the claim, arguing that he was nowhere related to the dealings of the companies, as he was only a ‘minority’ shareholder in them. He further said that a minority shareholder could not exercise control over the companies.
As per Hariharan, a director was only an agent of the company. He said the shareholding pattern of the companies 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 being attributed to Jain was an ‘exercise alien to law’,.
Read the order here:Satyendar-Jain