IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Narendra Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 25190 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2, 3 and 4 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Section 4 - Enforcement Case Information Report - Custody for Offence - Petitioner arrested by respondent remanded to judicial custody for offence punishable Prevention of Money Laundering in Enforcement Case Information Report respondent police seeks bail - Held, Petitioner has been in prison predicate offence beyond reasonable doubt in respect offence which surfaced perusal of additional counter affidavit filed by respondent would reveal investigation made by Directorate of Enforcement in order to identify sources of funds actual remitters in India had revealed that huge amounts were deposited account - Court view that there is no concrete ground for denial of personal liberty of petitioner complied with twin conditions referred to above for grant of bail and this court is inclined to grant bail petitioner on certain conditions - Order Accordingly.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in ECIR No. CEZO-1/14/2017 on the file of the respondent.
1. The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent on 8.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in Enforcement Case Information Report ECIR No. CEZO-1/14/2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
(ii) It was found out that some account holders had fraudulently opened Current Accounts during the year 2015 and on entering into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown public servants of the bank, sent some tainted money to Hong Kong without any genuine transactions under the guise of remitting 100% advance for import of goods.
(iii) On verification, it was found out that 19 account holders had received remittances from various bank accounts to their accounts by way of RTGS and in turn, they made nearly 772 remittances of 100% import advance based on some quotations, during the period from January 2015 to June 2015 to the tune of Rs.450 Crores and when verified with the details of such account holders, it was found out that none of the units was functioning in the given addresses and it is a case of Money Laundering through Shell Companies causing loss of Foreign Exchange to the tune of Rs.450 Crores to the Government.
(iv) Thereupon, a case of money laundering was registered in ECIR No. CEZO-1/14/2017 for the offences under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the said Act was filed.
(v) On investigation, it was found out that the petitioner is a part of the scam and he had incorporated a Company under the name M/s.Open Sky Exports HK Ltd in Hong Kong and as a Director of the Company, opened a bank account No. 390603314883 with Heng Seng Bank Ltd., Central Hong Kong Branch and through that account, had received a sum of USD 35,23,340/- equivalent to a sum of Rs.22,60,17,109/- from India under the guise of export advance, but, had not exported anything to India and thereby, had enriched himself to the tune of Rs.22.60 Crores for parking of 'proceeds of crime' by legitimizing the illicit and tainted money and committed an offence of International Trade Based Money Laundering.
(vi) Further investigation had revealed that the India-based remitters viz., M/s.Bhagya Laxmi Traders and M/s.Star Overseas are all untraceable and non-existent dummy entities which sent remittances to the Hong Kong based Company of the petitioner in the name of M/s.Open Sky Exports HK Ltd.
(vii) Having found sufficient reasons on examination done under Section 50 of the Act to believe the involvement of the petitioner in the offence of money laundering by directly attempting to indulge and knowingly assisted and knowingly is the party and is actually involved in the process connected with the proceeds of crime including its possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming as untainted property in terms of Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the petitioner was arrested and hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sriram Panchu appearing for the petitioner would submit his arguments as under:
Bail – Right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished, is not in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from anybody even temporarily without following proced....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of the existence of proceeds of crime for the commission of an offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Launderin....
Anticipatory bail may be granted under PMLA, considering the health challenges of the accused and lack of direct proceeds of crime linked to them.
The court established that under the PMLA, an accused can be convicted for money laundering even if not formally accused in the predicate offense, emphasizing the independent and serious nature of ec....
The conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are mandatory, requiring the court to be satisfied of the accused's non-guilt and lack of likelihood to commit further of....
The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is independent, and involvement in proceeds of crime suffices for liability; stringent conditions for bail must be met.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.