Bail denied in money laundering case over property encroachment proceeds and falsified construction records under Section 45 PMLA

The Allahabad HC rejected a bail application in a money laundering case involving proceeds of crime from property encroachment. The applicant was allegedly connected to M/s Vikas Construction, which generated proceeds through falsification of records. Despite the applicant's claim of no direct involvement, the court found prima facie evidence linking him to fund movements between firms through flow charts and financial trails. The court noted the applicant's initial non-cooperation with summons and inability to explain transactions, relying on family members for funds. Under Section 45 of PMLA, the court could not satisfy itself that the applicant was not guilty or unlikely to commit offenses on bail, resulting in rejection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Applicant's involvement in the predicate offences.
3. Applicant's connection to the proceeds of crime.
4. Conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Proceedings Initiated Under PMLA:
The applicant, a sitting MLA, was arraigned as an accused in ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 for offences punishable u/s 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA. The proceedings were based on investigations from three FIRs relating to predicate offences, primarily FIR No.129 of 2020, which alleged encroachment on public property by M/s Vikas Construction.

2. Applicant's Involvement in the Predicate Offences:
The applicant was not named or chargesheeted in FIR No.185 of 2021. However, FIR No.236 of 2020 implicated him along with his family members in usurping government land. The investigating agency did not allege that any proceeds of crime were generated from the predicate offence in FIR No.236 of 2020.

3. Applicant's Connection to the Proceeds of Crime:
The investigating agency alleged that proceeds of crime were generated from FIR No.129 of 2020. The agency claimed that M/s Vikas Construction, controlled by the applicant's family, generated proceeds of crime through illegal activities. The applicant allegedly received money from family members, which was used for personal expenses, including importing firearms. The applicant could not satisfactorily explain the source of funds in his account.

4. Conditions for Granting Bail Under Section 45 of the PMLA:
The court considered whether the conditions for bail u/s 45 of the PMLA were satisfied. The prosecution opposed the bail, and the court had to determine if there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty and would not commit any offence if granted bail. The court found that the applicant's explanations lacked credibility and there was material linking him to the proceeds of crime. The court could not form a prima facie satisfaction that the applicant was not guilty or would not commit an offence on bail.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the bail application, noting the gravity of the offence, the applicant's inability to explain the transactions, and the potential influence the applicant could exert on witnesses. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial process.

---