2020 (12) TMI 1103 - HC - Money Laundering

Denial of Anticipatory Bail in Money Laundering Case Raises Doubts on Property Acquisitions

PREM KUMAR Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA

The court denied the petitioner's anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case due to specific allegations of acquiring properties worth Rs. ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - complainant/ officials of ED has made specific allegation that petitioner and his family members has acquired movable and immovable properties worth ₹ 80 lacs from the proceeds of crime of his father-in-law - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was married with Pooja Kumari in the month of June, 2014. Prior to the year 2014 the petitioner and his father have not produced any documentary evidence to show the acquisition of movable and immovable properties save and except ancestral property standing in the name of ancestor of the petitioner but after marriage of the petitioner with Pooja Kumari, daughter of Binay Yadav and Srimati Devi, the petitioner and his family acquired many buses, vehicles and immovable property. The petitioner also made attempt to file income tax return of the year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 to legalize the proceeds of crime as his income but the facts show that petitioner got money from his mother-in-law either through his wife or through different persons in acquiring movable and immovable properties. The petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail - Application dismissed. Issues:Apprehension of arrest under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Allegations of acquiring properties from proceeds of crime - Anticipatory bail application.Analysis:The petitioner, fearing arrest in a money laundering case, argued innocence and lack of evidence linking him to the alleged crimes. The complainant accused the petitioner's family of amassing properties from the proceeds of crime generated by a banned outfit member. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the family's legitimate business history and ancestral property, refuting any connection to the alleged criminal activities. The petitioner's marriage into the accused's family was emphasized, along with the acquisition of vehicles and properties post-marriage, supported by income tax returns. The defense contended that funds received were lawful and unrelated to the accused's criminal activities.The ASG for the Union of India countered, alleging deliberate concealment of crime proceeds by the petitioner and his family. Statements from family members implicated them in acquiring assets through illegal means, with significant increases in wealth post-2014. The ASG highlighted discrepancies in income declarations, cash deposits, and property acquisitions, suggesting a deliberate effort to hide the origins of the funds. The petitioner's avoidance of summons and lack of satisfactory explanations further raised suspicions of complicity in money laundering activities.Upon review, the court found specific allegations of acquiring properties from crime proceeds worth Rs. 80 lakhs against the petitioner and his family. Despite ancestral property claims, the sudden increase in assets post-marriage and attempts to legitimize income through tax returns raised doubts. The court noted the flow of funds from the accused's mother-in-law and others for property acquisitions, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail for the petitioner based on the perceived lack of credibility in explanations and the apparent connection to illicit proceeds.In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, citing the substantial allegations of acquiring properties from crime proceeds and the lack of convincing explanations provided. The decision was based on the assessment of evidence presented by both parties, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in financial dealings to combat money laundering effectively.