TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Enforcement under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), alleging commission of offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4, read with Section 70 of the PMLA. The complaint alleges that his company received a sum of Rs. 20.75 Crores from M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd., an Indian entity, purportedly for the import of Photosensitive Semiconductor Devices. The Applicant contends that the transaction was a bona fide business dealing duly supported by documentary evidence, including invoices, airway bills, bill of entry, and remittance records bearing purpose code S0102 (payment for imports). 3. The complaint stems from an FIR registered by EOW, Delhi Police, against various entities, including M/s. Kinzal Freight Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., for forging Form 15CBs and allegedly facilitating illegal remittance of over Rs. 300 Crores outside India. It is the Applicant's case that he was neither named in the predicate offence nor aware of any illegality in the remittances made to his company. Despite this, his company was named in the supplementary PMLA complaint, and he was not served with any notice or summons prior to being arraigned as an accused. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 6. The role of the applicant is further substantiated by the statements of co-accused Rahul Kumar and Chitra Pandey recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, which disclose a systematic modus operandi involving incorporation of shell companies using forged identities, fabrication of import-export documentation, and remittance of funds abroad, followed by deliberate non-realisation of export proceeds and sham transactions to justify the defaults. Although the applicant's address details were not initially available in the official Hong Kong company records, his whereabouts were traced in December 2024 through sustained efforts. In view of his foreign business interests, particularly in M/s Broway Group Limited, which was a direct recipient of tainted funds, the applicant was deemed a flight risk. Accordingly, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued to secure his presence for investigation and subsequent trial proceedings. Submissions of the Applicant: 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the remittance received by the Applicant's Company, M/s. Broway Group Ltd., Hong Kong (Accused No.8), from M/s. Mizta Tradex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D, are inadmissible as they were either made during custody or by individuals likely to be treated as accused. Lastly, it was emphasized that no summons were issued to either the Applicant or the company during the investigation stage, and therefore, in absence of foundational facts under the PMLA, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail as per the settled position in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), Prem Prakash (supra), and Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3589. Submissions of the Respondent (Directorate of Enforcement): 9. Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel for the Respondent/ED, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. It has been submitted that the present case does not fall within the parameters laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, or Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 6, as the applicant has failed to join the investigation despite issuance of multiple summons under Section 50 of the PMLA. It is contended that the protections envisaged in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are applicable only in cases where the investigating agency has consciously chosen not to arrest the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singh v. ED, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8930, to argue that non-appearance in response to summons is in clear violation of the law. It was lastly submitted that economic offences constitute a separate class, as held in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, and warrant stringent treatment. Analysis 12. Upon perusal of the record and after consideration of the rival submissions, it emerges that the applicant, Amrit Pal Singh is the sole director of the company that has been arrayed as Accused No. 8 in the supplementary complaint dated 31.01.2023 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA"). The allegation against the applicant pertains to receipt of Rs. 20.75 Crores by his Hong Kong-based company, M/s Broway Group Ltd., from M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd., ostensibly towards import of photosensitive semiconductor devices. Though the applicant has sought to justify the transaction as a bona fide business remittance, supported by customs documentation and RBI purpose code S0102, the veracity of the transaction is presently under serious dispute and constitutes a core issue in the ongoing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clarified in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, (supra), the Court must be satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The applicant has not made any demonstrable effort to discharge the burden of showing non-involvement or placing material that could negate the allegation that his company received tainted funds. The Court cannot accept self-serving assertions of legitimate trade as conclusive when weighed against prima facie material showing structured remittances based on forged authorisations. 16. The applicant has sought to disassociate his personal culpability from that of the company, urging that he is implicated only vicariously by virtue of being the sole director of M/s Broway Group Ltd. This submission is untenable. The applicant is not merely a nonexecutive or nominal director, but the controlling mind of a oneperson company. In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (supra), the Supreme Court held that corporate veil may be lifted and vicarious liability imputed when the individual is in direct control and responsible for the company's actions. Given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....patory bail at an early stage can frustrate meaningful investigation. 19. The apprehension expressed by the Enforcement Directorate that the applicant poses a flight risk is not without merit. The applicant is a permanent resident of Hong Kong and has no known fixed assets or ties in India. His interception at the airport was not a voluntary surrender but an incidental occurrence. In Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, (supra), the Court held that anticipatory bail ought not be granted where the accused is residing abroad, evading investigation, and lacks a demonstrable intention to submit to jurisdiction. The applicant's conduct fits this description. 20. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation may be warranted to ascertain the applicant's role in facilitating or benefiting from the alleged money laundering operation. Premature grant of bail would impede investigation and compromise the statutory objectives of the PMLA. Conclusion 21. The allegations against the applicant's company pertain to grave economic offences involving substantial international money transfers allegedly carried out through forged document....