Patna HC rejects anticipatory bail in money laundering case for knowingly handling proceeds of crime under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA

Patna HC rejected petitioner's anticipatory bail application in money laundering case involving proceeds of crime and fund siphoning. Court found petitioner knowingly involved in acquisition, concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime. Under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA, bail requires court satisfaction that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail. Court noted coordinate bench had rejected similar applications of co-accused in related matter, finding no grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues involved:
The application for anticipatory bail in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) No. 04 of 2022, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO / 01 / 15 dated 30.03.2015, for the offence alleged under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Summary:

Issue 1: Allegations and Case Background
The complainant, an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate, filed a complaint against accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information & Technology Act. A raid led to the seizure of ATM cards, money, and mobiles from co-accused, leading to the arrest of multiple individuals. The petitioner is accused of money laundering involving acquisition, concealment, and transfer of proceeds of crime.

Issue 2: Petitioner's Defense
The petitioner, an established businessman, argues that he was not named in the FIR and his involvement was based on a confessional statement with no evidentiary value. He highlights his tax payments, lack of identified properties acquired from crime proceeds, and cooperation with the investigating agency regarding his business activities.

Issue 3: Precedents and Legal Arguments
The petitioner's counsel cites precedents where bail was granted to accused individuals by the Supreme Court. They argue that custodial interrogation is unnecessary post-chargesheet submission, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment.

Issue 4: Opposing Arguments
The Enforcement Directorate opposes anticipatory bail, alleging that the petitioner received a significant amount from a co-accused, disguising proceeds of crime as iron bar supplies. They claim the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory answers during interrogation and that further investigation is ongoing to trace siphoned proceeds of crime.

Issue 5: Court Decision
Considering the arguments and Section 45 of the P.M.L. Act, the Court rejects the anticipatory bail application, noting the rejection of bail for other co-accused individuals. The Court emphasizes the criteria for bail under the Act and refers to relevant legal precedents regarding the application of Section 45 in cases of money laundering offenses.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, including the allegations, defenses, legal arguments, opposing views, and the final decision of the Court regarding the application for anticipatory bail in a money laundering case.

---