TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail denied in money laundering case involving fraudulent investment schemes under Section 45 PMLA due to prima facie evidence</h1> <h3>Udhaw Singh Versus Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director, Lko.</h3> Udhaw Singh Versus Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director, Lko. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the applicant.2. Justification of transactions and movement of funds.3. Prima facie involvement in money laundering.4. Consideration for bail u/s 45 of PMLA.Summary:1. Applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the applicant:The applicant was implicated in ECIR No.LKZO/05/2021, triggering proceedings under the PMLA. The ECIR was lodged in connection with numerous FIRs against M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and its directors/officers for cheating home-buyers/investors (para 1). The applicant's firms were alleged to have dealt with 'Proceeds of Crime' generated by M/s Shine City (para 4).2. Justification of transactions and movement of funds:The applicant received approximately Rs. 7.68 crores in his firms' accounts over five years, primarily from M/s Shine City (para 5). The applicant claimed the funds were business transactions related to real estate and construction services (paras 10-21). However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the transactions lacked sufficient justification and were not consistent with prudent business practices (paras 26-30).3. Prima facie involvement in money laundering:The court noted that the applicant's firms, established around 2016, received significant funds from M/s Shine City. The applicant's explanation for the high brokerage rates and the nature of transactions did not inspire confidence (paras 43-52). The court found prima facie material linking the applicant to the movement and trail of funds from M/s Shine City, indicating complicity in money laundering (para 49).4. Consideration for bail u/s 45 of PMLA:The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA (paras 37-42). The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for bail, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail (paras 47-53). Consequently, the bail application was rejected (para 53).In conclusion, the court rejected the bail application due to the applicant's prima facie involvement in money laundering and failure to meet the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial (para 54).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
