16 March 2024 3:51 PM GMT
The Supreme Court will deliver the judgment on the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case on March 18.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal on January 17 reserved judgment on the petition filed by Jain challenging the April 2023 order of the Delhi High Court which denied him bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The bench will also deliver judgment on the bail plea of co-accused Ankush Jain.
Satyendar Jain was arrested by the central agency in May 2022 on charges of money laundering. He, along with others, were accused of laundering money through three companies during 2010-12 and 2015-16. He remained under custody for nearly one year till May 26, 2023, when the Supreme Court granted him interim bail on medical grounds, which was extended from time to time.
During the hearing, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) objected to the release of the former minister on bail by arguing that he exercised de facto control over the companies allegedly at the centre of a purported money-laundering racket. Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, appearing for the central agency, told the bench that Jain exercised effective control even after giving up his position as a director in the companies. He argued, “Unaccounted cash of over four crores were received in these companies, through entries. This is not disputed. Satyendar Jain, however, has maintained that he had nothing to do with this amount or the companies. That's the crux of his case. His not being a director has no significance. He was de facto in control of these companies through his family members…Co-accused Vaibhav and Ankush Jain were only dummies. The entire amount that was received by these companies can be attributed to Satyendar Jain.”
The law officer also cautioned the court against setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the high court which have previously denied Jain's request for bail. In this connection, Raju pointed to the circumspection with which the Supreme Court has ordinarily interfered with concurrent findings. In response to this, Justice Trivedi pointed out, "Concurrent final findings, not tentative findings."
"Even findings on facts," ASG Raju insisted. Before concluding his arguments, he once again repeated that the premium of the shares of the Jain-linked company had been inflated, while the buyback rates were low to provide a cover for the money-laundering exercise. The allegation levelled against the AAP leader is that he effectively controlled these companies, shares of which were purchased by certain Kolkata-based entities after routing them through shell companies, using black money provided by Jain's associates. These shares were later bought back by co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain. According to the ED's chargesheet, which originates out of a disproportionate assets case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), this is the manner in which money was laundered, with Satyendar Jain being the mastermind behind the alleged scheme.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, however, vehemently denied these allegations on behalf of Jain. At the outset of his rejoinder, he urged the court to look at all the evidence and the circumstances in a holistic manner. "One straw doesn't break a camel's back. It's the cumulative effect. Your Lordships need to take a holistic view of the case."
While questioning the necessity and proportionality of the arrest, Singhvi urged the court to remember the small proportion of shares held by Satyendar Jain and his decision to resign from his post as a director of the two of the companies at the centre of the controversy. The senior counsel argued -
"Moreover, he has already been incarcerated for a year and continues to be in jail despite getting bail in the predicate offence. It also must be remembered that the ECIR was lodged in 2017, and he was arrested only after five years," Singhvi added. In the same vein, Senior Advocate N Hariharan also questioned why the 'threat perception' that Jain would intimidate witnesses and try to influence trial, which has been cited by the ED as one of the reasons to oppose Jain's bail plea, did not exist in these five years.
Echoing the submissions made during his opening arguments, Singhvi once again insisted that where the predicate offence was over Rs 1.47 crores, a money laundering case relating to an amount exceeding this cannot be made out. When Justice Trivedi expressed her doubts about this rationale, Singhvi asserted, "Then change the predicate offence to a non-disproportionate assets case, or the check period will have to change. If you have chosen to stick with a DA case for a given check period, then this is not permissible."
"Is it your submission that the ED has to restrict itself to the CBI case? The PMLA is independent," Justice Trivedi asked.
"It is not independent of the anchor offence. It's a DA case, not a bribe or any other case. In a DA case, you fix the amount, etc. The goalpost cannot vary...How do you then do expenditure minus income...Then it's not a DA case. This is actually an income tax case which they are trying to convert into a DA case," Singhvi argued. He also questioned the statements relied on by the Enforcement Directorate, arguing that some were obtained by posing leading questions to the witnesses. Others, he said, were cyclostyled and copy-pasted, indicating that the witnesses had been tutored by the agency. Taking the court through the statement by the prosecution's star witness and Jain's chartered accountant, JP Mohta, Singhvi finally argued that there were no credible links tying Jain to the allegations of money laundering.
At the end, while urging the court to allow Jain's bail application, Singhvi also said -
Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023