Petitioner granted regular bail in money laundering case as Rs. 29 crore amount not proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA

HC granted regular bail to petitioner in money laundering case involving non-compliance and misuse of subsidized coal under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Court found that amount of Rs. 29,50,36,622.79 was paid/purchased by petitioner, making it prima facie not proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u). Relying on SC precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, court held property must be derived from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence. Petitioner released on bail of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Regular Bail Application under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Allegations of Non-Compliance and Misuse of Subsidized Coal.
3. Validity and Authenticity of Business Operations and Documentation.
4. Calculation and Definition of "Proceeds of Crime".
5. Legal Precedents and Judgments Referenced.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Application under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2024, registered for alleged offences under Sections 3/4 of the PMLA. The petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2024 under the allegation of involvement and guilt in the offence of money laundering. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a prosecution complaint on 15.03.2024 under Section 45 of the PMLA in ECIR Case No. 01 of 2024.

2. Allegations of Non-Compliance and Misuse of Subsidized Coal:
The predicate offence forming the basis of the present ECIR was the FIR bearing No. 10 of 2019 dated 20.01.2019, where it was alleged that coal meant for M/s OM Coke Industries was being transported to Varanasi Mandi instead. The petitioner was accused of running 13 bogus firms/entities since 2009, receiving subsidized coal, and selling it in the open market contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, generating Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 71 Cr.

3. Validity and Authenticity of Business Operations and Documentation:
The petitioner argued that the businesses were established and operated in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines. Various documents such as sale challans, tax invoices, forest challans, transport challans, weighment slips, and e-way bills were submitted to support the legitimacy of the business operations. The petitioner maintained that errors in vehicle registration numbers in the registers were human errors and not indicative of fraudulent activities.

4. Calculation and Definition of "Proceeds of Crime":
The prosecution alleged that the total proceeds of crime amounted to Rs. 71,32,28,759.17, which included Rs. 29,50,36,622.79 paid for coal purchase and Rs. 41,81,92,136.38 obtained from selling the coal in the open market. The court noted that the amount paid for coal purchase could not be termed as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The correct calculation of proceeds of crime should exclude the investment amount, resulting in a reduced figure.

5. Legal Precedents and Judgments Referenced:
The petitioner relied on several judgments to argue for bail, including:
- Anil Tuteja and Ors. vs. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.: Burden of proof lies on the applicants only after framing of the charge.
- Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors.: Non-cooperation in response to summons does not render a person liable for arrest.
- Prakash Industries Limited & Anr. vs. ED: ED must share information with the concerned agency if another law is contravened.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.: Proceeds of crime must be derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

The court, considering these precedents, granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, emphasizing the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in bail matters, especially in socio-economic offences.

Conclusion:
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, recognizing that the amount paid for coal purchase could not be considered proceeds of crime. The court imposed conditions on the bail, including surrendering the passport, not tampering with evidence, and appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal precedents and the correct interpretation of "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA.

---