AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegal and arbitrary in nature and in violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA") (ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that since the arrest of the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement is illegal and in violation of section 19 of PMLA, the consequential orders of remand passed by Learned Special Court, PMLA, Patna dated 28.09.2024 and 05.10.2024 and all other future orders extending the remand of the Petitioner are also illegal. (iii) To issue a further appropriate writ, order or direction for the forthwith release of the Petitioner from judicial custody. (iv) This Hon'ble Court may award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the Respondent(s) Authorities. (v) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The salient facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are as follows: One M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited (hereinafter described....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing any pre-paid challans and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 24,42,67,900/- to the Government. Thus, M/s AMPL allegedly embazelled huge quantity of sum by illegal mines and the above-mentioned sum was proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("the PMLA" for brevity). Subsequently, vide another addendum dated 9th of November, 2023, a second ECIR was registered taking into consideration subsequent 12 F.I.R.s against M/s AMPL and certain other persons. The Petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R., nor connected with sand mining business. No license was granted to the Petitioner for extraction of sand and he is no way connected with sand business of M/s AMPL. However, in course of investigation, the Petitioner was summoned to appear before the ED on 27th of October, 2023. The Petitioner informed the Investigating Officer of ED that at the relevant point of time he was out of the country. The Petitioner appeared before the ED on 25th of September, 2024 and furnished all required information claimed by the Investigating Officer under Annexure- A to the summon, dated 9th of September, 2024." 3. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that on 10t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yan, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that the Petitioner is not implicated as an accused in Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 which was registered by police attached to Dehri Nagar Police Station under Sections 411 and 402 of the IPC. In ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022, dated 10th of January, 2022 and Addendum ECIR, dated 4th June, 2023, the contents of the FIR of the aforesaid case has been briefly narrated as hereunder:- (i) Examination of the FIR no, 407/2021 dated 03.08.2021 revealed that Authorized Staff/Director of the license holder M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited for the license no. KROHTAS/ 07/2021 having address Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no.-00, Block-Dehri Thana Dalmia Nagar, District-Rohtas, Khata No-112, Khesra No-408 and license no. K-ROHTAS/14/2021 having address- Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no-00, Block- Dehri, Thana Dalmia Nagar, District- Rohtas, Khata No.-112, Khesra No.-408 has, been charged with section 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code for Dishonestly receiving stolen property and Criminal Conspiracy respectively have been invoked which are scheduled under Part A, Paragraph 1 of Prevention of Money Laundering Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the syndicate members were engaged in sand mining and they participated in the auction process through dummy entities. After one dummy entity wins the bid, initial royalty payment is made pulling money from different persons. Actual mining is controlled by the syndicate and profits generated from illegal mining of sand are divided amongst the syndicate members. The said profit from illegal mining is claimed to be the proceeds of crime. One Mithlesh Kumar being a syndicate member in his statement stated that the Petitioner/ Ajay Singh is part of the syndicate having 10 per cent share. On perusal of the bank accounts statement of S.G. Project Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as SGPL), a Private Limited Company of the Petitioner, huge financial transaction was found between the said company and M/s AMPL. The said money amounting to Rs. 1 Crore 34 Lakhs, approximately are transactions in non-interests bearing loans to M/s AMPL. It is also alleged by the ED that huge amount of money was transferred from bank account of Vinay Vinimay Private Limited to M/s AMPL. It is claimed by the ED that the said amount was transferred as loans to M/s AMPL but no supporting documents has been filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever." 16. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner next refers to the provision contained in Section 19 of the said Act which speaks of power to arrest. Section 19 states as follows:- "Section 19:- Power to arrest. 1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that there was reason to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable under the said Act. 19. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to Paragraph No. 15 of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. C. Shukla & Ors., reported in 1998 3 SCC 410. It is held by the three Judge's Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment as hereunder:- "15. After having held that the documents were neither books of account nor kept in the regular course of business the High Court observed that even if they were admissible under Section 34, they were not, in view of the plain language of the section, sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the head of a person, against whom they were sought to be used. As, according to the High Court, the prosecution conceded that besides the alleged entries in the diaries and the loose sheets there was no other evidence it observed that the entries would not further the case of the prosecution. As regards the admissibility of the documents under Section 10 the High Court held that the materials collected during investigation did not raise a reasonable ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it." 22. In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1957 SC 747, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is recognized on well established authority that principle underlying the reception of evidence of the statements, acts and writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on the theory of agency. Ordinarily, a person cannot be made responsible for the acts of others unless they have been instigated by him or done with his knowledge or consent. 23. This Section provides an exception to the rule, by laying down an overt act committed by one of the conspirators being sufficient to make it the act of all. But then, the opening words of Section made it abundantly clear that such concept of agency can be availed, only after the Court is sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per the constitutional imperatives. No case is made out on the basis of material which is not cognizable in law, to direct investigation. 277. Before dilating upon the issue canvassed in the application we make it clear that we have not examined the main writ petitions vis-à-vis challenge to the appointments of Respondents 2 and 3. We are examining only the merit of IA No. 3 supported by IA No. 4, as to whether a case is made out on the basis of materials which are placed on record, to constitute SIT and direct investigation against the various functionaries/officers which are projected in Annexures A-8, A- 9 and A-10 and other entries on loose sheets and further monitor the same. 278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case [CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, notebooks and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of "books of account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, "reasons to believe" that the person to be arrested, is guilty of an offence punishable under the PML Act. => The person arrested, as soon as may be, must be informed of the grounds of arrest. These preconditions act as stringent safeguards to protect life and liberty of individuals." 30. On the same issue, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 38 of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed, while interpreting Section 19 of the said Act with reference to Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, "In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lesh Kumar, has been taken for implicating another person, i.e., the petitioner. Similarly, no document has been filed by the ED to show that the petitioner has admitted his involvement in sand mining scam. 34. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's arrest is illegal, violative of fundamental right and is liable to be quashed. 35. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the question put to him by ED would not be sufficient in itself for the Investigating Officer to hold that he was liable to be arrested under Section 19, as the said provisions specially required him to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence under the said Act. Mere non-corporation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA would not be enough to render him liable to be arrested under Section 19. 36. It was stated by the ED that the petitioner was evasive in providing relevant information. It was ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f February, 2023 at the premises of one Ashok Kumar, Director of one M/s Broadson Commodities Private Limited, Sudama Kumar (an Associate of Ashok Kumar) and Radha Charan Sah (one of the syndicate members of the illegal sand mining). The documents seized by the I.T. Department were procured under Section 54 of the PMLA. 38. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the documents seized from the premises of Radha Charan Sah and Ashok Kumar include details of ledger of income and expenditure related to sale of sand from various Ghats of Aurangabad and Rohtas, Bihar and details of profit sharing percentage among the syndicate members. The entries recorded in the said documents were further corroborated with the transactions undertaken through bank account of M/s AMPL and others. 39. It was learnt from the ledger that sand worth Rs. 38,71,46,070/- was illegally sold during the period April, 2020 to August, 2020 without generation of challan causing revenue loss to the Government exchequer. 40. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the information was shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA with the Mining Department, Bihar with a copy to DGP, Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank account analysis of M/s SGPL revealed huge cash deposits totaling Rs. 29.3 Crore in its account during the year 2016-2021. 41. The Learned Additional Solicitor General practically relied on the above-mentioned averments made on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit to provide an overview of the incident. It is submitted by him that syndicate of sand scam has been operating. 42. Entire process of tender of sand ghats is under the control of the syndicate. M/s AMPL, Radha Charan Sah, Ashok Kumar, the present petitioner and others are members of the said syndicate and illegal trade of sand was operated by syndicate members and they used to receive proceeds of crime according to their share. M/s AMPL and Broadson Commodities Private Limited are the two major companies involved in illegal trade of sand. The ED filed complaint against M/s AMPL and its Directors after 24 numbers of FIRs were lodged alleging commission of scheduled offence by them. During investigation of the cases, ED found complicity of the present petitioner and others allegedly on the basis of ledger book seized from the possession of one Radha Charan Sah and documents seized by the Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 47. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that monetary transaction between two companies is not uncommon in the business, but when there is monetary transaction between two companies some norms are required to be followed. As for example, there should be a board meeting where decision for monetary transaction would be taken by the Board of Directors. On the basis of such resolution, the bank institutions shall be asked by the company to disburse the amount in the credit of the trasferee company and there would be similar resolution at the time of transfer of the money in the account of transferee company. No such requirement was followed either by M/s AMPL or by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner's complicity is proved. 48. The learned ASG refers to page 92 of the writ petition, consisting the statement regarding "reason to believe". Paragraph Nos. 9 to 14 and 19 to 20 of the said document states as follows: "9. Further investigation in this case revealed that Shri Ajay Singh, Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is also a part of this syndicate with 10% of total share in the profit generated from the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s Aditya Multicom Priv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently transferred to Mis Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd on the same day however, when asked about the wa Ajay Singh could not satisfactorily explain nature and purpose of the transactions and gave misleading answers. He stated that Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd has given loans to M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd, however he accepted that he did not have any supporting documents regarding the same. Further, analysis of the ledger of M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd revealed that transactions with Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd were against sale of sand. Hence, it is evident that Ajay Singh. Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is giving contradictory replies and trying to hide the truth to mislead the investigation. 14. Further on perusal of ledger of SG Projects Pvt Ltd it is seen that cash deposit of Rs 49,58,000/- was made into the account of SGPL on 17.06.2015 and on the same day Rs 3 Cr was transferred to M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd from SGPL. 19. Thus, in view of the above, I have reasons to believe that SG Projects Pvt Ltd through its director Shri Ajay Singh is involved in illegal sand mining business and also a part of the syndicate which is involved in illegal mining and its sale, thereby ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code . (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the Joint Director. 50. In Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 9 S.C.R. 110, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Paragraph No. 13 as follows: "13. At the outset, it may be noted that as well settled by now, the provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into the offence of money laundering but more importantly to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As held by the Three- Judge Bench in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act... 426 to 430..... 431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence." 52. Finally in Paragraph No. 19 of the aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "19. The above ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal clinches the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the appellants with regard to the provisions of Section 50 being violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, and we need not further elaborate the same, nor do we need to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering." 56. In Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2015 16 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the conditions specified in Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and Section 71 of the said Act. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be taken to a Magistrate. (3) Where any officer of Enforcement has arrested any person under sub-section (1), he shall, for the purpose of releasing such person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station has, and is subject to, under the, [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).]" 59. Section 103 of the Customs Act states:- "103. A comparative reading of Section 19 of the PMLA and the abovementioned two provisions suggest that while PMLA and FERA prescribed Arresting Officer "reason to believe" that the person is guilty of offence, Section 103 speaks of the Customs Officers power to screen and scan a person with scientific equipment when he has reason to believe that any person referred to in sub-section (2) of section 100 has any goods liable to confiscation secreted inside his body." 61. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made detailed discussion on the meaning and purport of "reason to believe" relying on a Canadian Judgement in the case of Gifford v. Kelson. The relevant paragraph in Vij....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gher standard than mere suspicion. Reliance has been further placed on Premium Granites v. State of T.N. [Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691] to urge that the requirement of giving reasons for exercise of the power by itself excludes chances of arbitrariness...." We will reproduce what has been held in Gifford (supra): "A suspicion or belief may be entertained, but suspicion and belief cannot exist together. Suspicion is much less than belief; belief includes or absorbs suspicion. XX XX XX When, we speak of "reason to believe" we mean a conclusion arrived at as to the existence of a fact. Of course, "reason to believe" does not amount to positive knowledge nor does it mean absolute certainty but it does convey conviction of the mind founded on evidence regarding the existence of a fact or the doing of an act. Suspicion, on the other hand, rings uncertainty. It lives in imagination. It is inkling. It is mistrust. It is chalk. 'Reason to believe' is not. It is cheese." Gifford (supra) accurately explains the difference between the "reasons to believe" and "suspicion". "Suspicion" requires lower degree of satisfaction, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. (c) As the accused persons named in the abovementioned FIRs committed scheduled offence under the PMLA, ED took upon the cases for investigation by recording an ECIR No. PTZO/7/2022, dated 10th of January, 2022 read with Addendum ECIRs dated 04.06.2023 and 09.11.2023. During investigation, premises of Ashok Kumar, Director of Broadson Commodities Private Limited; Sudama Kumar, Associate of Ashok Kumar; and Radha Charan Sah, one of the syndicate members of the illegal sand mining were raided and IT returns of the said persons and the company were collected and seized. (d) On examination of a ledger, seized from the premises of Radha Charan Sah, in respect of income and expenditure, Investigating Officer came to know details of profit sharing percentage amongst the syndicate members. (e) Upon analysis of the said documents, it was ascertained that M/s AMPL illegally sold out sand extracted from the mines without any permit amounting to Rs. 38,71,46,070/- without generation of challans causing revenue loss of the Government. (f) During investigation, it was also learnt that syndicate members are operational in sand mining activity and they parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021. 67. The allegation in the said FIR was against M/s AMPL who was the licence holder in respect of sand blocks. It is the specific case of the ED in Clause 7 (ii) of the abovementioned ECIR that the concerned FIR upon which Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 was instituted revealed that only 600000 cubic ft. of sand was allegedly extracted, whereas there was 7784350 cubic ft. of sand stored at the both the abovementioned licence holding places as per the report provided by the Project Management Unit. It was alleged in the said FIR that the authorised staff/Director of the licence holder sold the sand stealthily without issuing pre-paid challans. Thus, causing loss to the tune of Rs. 24,42,67,900/- to the Bihar Government Exchequer. Clause 7(3) also speaks of embezzlement of the said money by M/s AMPL. 68. It is not alleged in the ECIR that the petitioner is the licence holder of any of the sand blocks. It is also not alleged that men and agents of the petitioner or its company were engaged for illegal extraction and storage of sand at the storing places. Therefore, we can safely come to the conclusion that the ED could not collect any evidence to prove that the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not considered by the ED. 74. The learned ASG has argued with great stress about the power of the ED regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. 75. In this regard, it is the obligation of this Court to mention that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the validity of Section 50 has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India because it allows the various officers under PMLA to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further the provision mandates that person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the subject matter of the investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the PMLA. Under Section 50 of the PMLA, the Director is vested with the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in the matter of ................ (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a (reporting entity) and examining him on oath. The Directors also empowered to impose fine under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence." 77. There is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to the scope of Section 50. The only question is as to whether the statement of the petitioner involved him in an offence of moneylaundering. The petitioner admitted that he had financial transitions with M/s AMPL. According to the case of the prosecution, it is M/s AMPL and its Director who have proceeds of crime. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity (here sand scam) connected with the proceeds of crime including its c....