2023 (3) TMI 1474 - HC - Money Laundering

Section 45 PMLA twin conditions apply to anticipatory bail applications in money laundering cases

Paras Kumar Bansal Versus Enforcement Directorate

The Patna HC rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case. The court held that twin conditions under Section 45 of ... Grant of Anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - twin conditions as prescribed u/s 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in THE ASST. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE VERSUS DR. V.C. MOHAN [2022 (1) TMI 511 - SUPREME COURT] has held that once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the PML Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA must get triggered-although the application is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the three judge Bench of Apex CoVIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has held that twin conditions shall apply irrespective of the nature of proceedings i.e. regular bail or anticipatory bail. The petitioner cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail - prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Issues Involved:1. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).2. Petitioner's claim of false implication.3. Legal standards for granting anticipatory bail under PMLA.Summary:1. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, proprietor of M/s Paras Lubricants Ltd., was involved in the acquisition, concealment, and transfer of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,04,02,350/-. These funds, originating from Bank of India accounts in Gaya, were transferred to the petitioner's account with Yes Bank, New Delhi, during July to October 2016. The investigation established that the petitioner knowingly engaged in activities connected with the proceeds of crime, projecting them as untainted.2. Petitioner's claim of false implication:The petitioner argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He contended that his name was not mentioned in the initial FIRs or the original complaint but was added only in the second supplementary complaint. He claimed the money received was for goods sold to M/s Sunil Trading Company and M/s Sandeep Traders and provided purchase orders and payment records to the prosecution. The petitioner also highlighted his long-standing business history without any prior cases against him and asserted that one of his properties was already attached, reducing the risk of absconding.3. Legal standards for granting anticipatory bail under PMLA:The Additional Solicitor General (A.S.G.) opposed the anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to provide credible explanations or produce purchase orders for transactions with alleged fake firms. The A.S.G. argued that under Section 45 of PMLA, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for bail, as he could not prove his non-involvement in money laundering. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 45 in various cases, underscoring the stringent conditions for granting bail in PMLA cases. The court concluded that the petitioner was deliberately evading the process of law and had not cooperated with the investigation.Judgment:Considering the facts and circumstances, the court rejected the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail in connection with Special Case (PMLA) No. 01 of 2020.