2023 (9) TMI 1456 - HC - Money Laundering

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 ... Grant of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - siphoning off of funds - Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that petitioner is knowingly involved in acquisition, concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime and projection of the same as untainted, as referred to hereinabove. Further, Section 45(1)(ii) of the P.M.L.Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., no person accused of an offence under the P.M.L.Act shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he/she is not guilty of such offence and that he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Taking into consideration the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and materials available on record as also in view of section 45 of the P.M.L. Act and the fact that prayer for anticipatory bail of other two co-accused has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RANJEET KUMAR MANDAL AND SAUDAGAR MANDAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (PMLA) , PATNA [2023 (7) TMI 1392 - PATNA HIGH COURT], this Court does not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and as such, the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. Petition dismissed. 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 BackgroundThe 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 DefenseThe 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 ArgumentsThe 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 ArgumentsThe 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 DecisionConsidering 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.