TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. The first bail application, being BA1 No. 1760 of 2024, was rejected by this Court on 07.01.2025. Thereafter, this order was challenged in the SPLA (Crl.) No.1685 of 2025, Banmeet Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement ("the SPLA"), before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the SPLA was withdrawn with the liberty to renew the application for grant of bail after some time. 4. Facts have already been narrated in the first bail application. The Court reproduces it as hereunder:- "2. The background of the case is as follows: The applicant was investigated with regard to the offences of drug trafficking and money laundering in the United States of America. He was arrested in the month of April, 2019, in the United Kingdom on extradition request of the US authorities on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The applicant entered into a plea agreement with the US authorities on 05.01.2024. He was convicted, but his sentence was reduced to 60 months. On 19.04.2024, the applicant was released. On his arrival in India, he was interrogated and finally arrested. It has been the case of the Enforcement Directorate ("ED") that as per the information received from the US aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tainted money i.e. proceeds of crime project it as untained. 10.2.22 That the foreign inward remittances received in the bank accounts of Banmeet Singh, Amarpreet Kaur Chawla and Surjeet Singh were further rotated to various other accounts belonging to them so as to disguise the origin of funds and project those as untainted money. The rotation of funds through various accounts to make them appear as untainted money is a classic example of Money Laundering. This clearly proves the mala fide intention of Banmeet Singh and Amarpreet Kaur Chawla of projecting the illegally earned money through sale of illegal drugs as untainted and utilizing the same for their personal use. 10.2.23 Further, the remaining PoC in the instant case i.e. 4250 Bitcoins is still untraceable and is suspected to be in possession of the Banmeet Singh or Parvinder Singh, investigation in respect of the same is undergoing." 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that after rejection of the first bail application, there have been multiple changes, which took place. He submits that the investigation in the instant matter was, in fact, unfair. He also raises the follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver BTC were seized by the IO on 02.05.2024 from the wallets of co-accused, Parvinder Singh, those were transferred accordingly. It is also argued that, in fact, the photographs of the screenshots of the device was taken by the IO by Apple iPhone 13, but subsequently, when data was transferred in the new Apple iPhone 16 pro, the photographs revealed it accordingly. He submits that after the allegations, which were levelled by the brother of the applicant, the department requested the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre for analysis in connection with the investigation done in the matter; the report reveals that no divergence of assets was found from this cluster on the day of seizure, i.e. 02.05.2024, and after the day of seizure. In fact, the report was placed for the perusal of the Court. 9. It is objected to on behalf of the applicant on the ground that this report has been given by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, with a caveat that it is for intelligence only and not for production in any court of law. In fact, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this report further doubts the case of ED about the numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That Mr. Singh's money laundering offense of conviction included, among other things, the laundering of criminal proceeds sent from the United States to a place or places outside of the United States. The answer is as follows:- 1. The Government agrees that Mr. Singh's proffers took place under the terms set forth in the agreement between the United States Government and Mr. Singh, and they were protected by the limited use immunity guarantees set forth in the government's proffer letter. 2. The Government agrees that Mr. Singh pleaded guilty to a money laundering conspiracy offense (that is, he knowingly joined an agreement with an objective to launder funds) that included, among other things, an agreement to launder criminal proceeds sent from the United States to a place or places outside of the United States. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also submits that the proffer is further protected by Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 17. On it, learned counsel for the ED submits that the response to the queries that were sent by the U.S. with regard to the proffer is dated 23.12.2024. It was available when the first b....