2021 (6) TMI 404 - HC - Money Laundering

Petitioner denied bail in Money Laundering case citing seriousness of offense and risk of evidence tampering

Mohammed Riyaz Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office-II, Government of India

The Court denied bail to the petitioner in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, citing the seriousness of the offense, the risk of ... Seeking enlargement on Bail - Money Laundering - transfer of money outside the country without making any import - the amount parked outside India - tampering of evidence is possible - HELD THAT:- Considering the serious nature of the offence, this Court declines to grant bail. Petition dismissed. Issues:Bail application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for offenses under Sections 3 and 4 - Seriousness of the offense - Possibility of tampering with evidence - Previous bail petitions dismissed.Analysis:The petitioner, A1 in C.C. No. 26 of 2019 under the PMLA, sought bail citing the maximum imprisonment of 7 years for the offense, his custody since 05.07.2019, and willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. The Special Public Prosecutor objected to bail, detailing how the petitioner used forged documents to integrate a significant sum into his account and conducted international money laundering transactions. The Prosecutor emphasized the impact on the financial system and sovereignty, labeling the petitioner's actions as International Trade Based Money Laundering under PMLA Sections 3 and 4.The Court considered the petitioner's history of bail petitions, all previously dismissed, and the seriousness of the offense. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Nikesh Tara Chand Shah Vs. Union of India, the Court highlighted the rationale behind classifying offenses under PMLA based on sentencing and the objective of the Act to combat money laundering effectively. It was noted that releasing the petitioner on bail could lead to tampering with evidence and evasion of trial, given the substantial amount transferred outside the country without corresponding imports.In a previous bail application, the Court had observed the gravity of the offense, the potential for evidence tampering, and witness interference. With the charge sheet laid and the trial pending, the Court found no change in circumstances to warrant granting bail. Consequently, considering the serious nature of the offense and the risk of tampering with evidence, the Court declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to complete the proceedings within twelve months. Ultimately, the Criminal Original Petition for bail was dismissed based on the aforementioned factors.