On Thursday (April 6), the Delhi High Court turned down the bail application of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Satyendar Jain, who has been arrested in connection to a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
It must be mentioned that the Enforcement Directorate had earlier attached properties worth ₹4.81 crores, belonging to five companies – Akinchan Developers, Indo Metal Impex, Mangalayatan Projects, Paryas Infosolutions, and J.J. Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd.
The matter came up for hearing before a single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma. In its 45-page verdict [pdf], the Delhi High Court made 8 scathing observations about the AAP leader.
- Justice Sharma noted that Satyendar Jain was at the helm of the operations in the above-mentioned companies.
The testimony of Mr Pankul Aggarwal shows the total control of Satyendar Kumar Jain on J.J.Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the testimony of Rajender Bansal, Jivendra Mishra, Ashish Chokhani and J.P.Mohta shows that Satyendar Kumar Jain is the conceptualizer, visualizer and executor of the entire operation and his being aided and abated by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.
2. The Delhi High Court stated that there was enough evidence to suggest that the AAP leader maintained indirect control in the alleged money laundering operation.
“…Broad probabilities indicate that M/s Akinchan Developer Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Prayas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. are controlled and managed by Satyendar Kumar Jain.
The constant changing pattern of the shareholding in the companies clearly indicates that Sh. Satyendar Kumar Jain was indirectly controlling the affairs of the companies. The evidence on record though speaks in volumes but has not been discussed or examined in detail so as to not cause prejudice to the petitioner.“
3. The court rejected the defence of Satyendar Jain that he did not have physical possession of the attached properties.
“The ED has emphatically stated and placed material on record to substantiate that the documents were antedated to make Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain as Directors in the companies for the purpose of making declaration of income belonging to Satyendar Kumar Jain. The fact that Satyendar Kumar Jain wrote a letter to income tax authorities to adjust his demand of tax against the tax deposited by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain shows their close complicity.
The plea of Satyendar Kumar Jain that he was not found in physical possession of any property needs to be rejected out-rightly as for the offence of money
laundering the physical possession of proceeds of crime is not necessary.“
4. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma pointed out that co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain had taken the responsibility for the laundered money.
As submitted, it is not disputed that Rs. 4.81 Crores was received in these four companies M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Prayas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s J.J.Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd. It is also not disputed that these transactions have been carried out through Kolkata based entry operators. Accused Satyendar Kumar Jain in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA abandoned his responsibilities by saying that he has nothing to do with the same. Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain have stated that it was their money.
5. The Delhi High Court noted that the special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) took cognisance of the usage of Kolkata-based hawala operators by Satyendar Jain and his accomplice.
“The Ld. Special Judge prima facie opined that the applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain was involved in concealing proceeds of crime by giving cash to Kolkata-based entry operators and thereafter, bringing the cash into the companies namely, M/s.Manglayatan Developers/Projects Pvt.Ltd., M/s. Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Paryas Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. against sale of shares to project that the income of these three companies was untainted.
It was held by the Ld. Special Court, PMLA that apart from that, accused Satyendar Kumar Jain has also used the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of Rs.15,00,000/- by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators in his company M/s.J.J.Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd.
It was held that the applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain had knowingly done such an activity to mask tracing of the source of the ill-gotten money and accordingly such proceeds of crime were layered through Kolkata-based entry operators. It was further held that as and when during the check period, cash was paid by applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain to the Kolkata-based entry operators, the proceeds of crime stood generated.“
6. The court observed that Satyendar Jain wanted to use ₹16.50 crores from attached companies to purchase agricultural land and develop township.
“Accused Vaibhav Jain in his statement recorded on 27.02.2018 stated that cash amount of totaling to 16.50 crores approx. was paid by him, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ankush Jain and Satyendar Kumar Jain for taking accommodation entries Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., Paryas lnfosolution Pvt. Ltd., Indo Metalimpex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. through Calcutta based entry operators. Vaibhav Jain has stated that this idea was mooted by Satyendar Kumar Jain to use it for purchasing of agricultural land and to develop township.“
7. Justice Sharma stated that the AAP leader could use his influence to tamper with the evidence.
The petitioner Satyendar Kumar Jain is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody
8. The Delhi High Court took note of the special treatment provided to Satyendar Jain in Tihar Jail.
The special treatment extended by the prison authorities to Satyender Kumar Jain shows that the ED’s apprehension throughout was correct that being a former Minister of Prisons and Health he is receiving favourable treatment from the prison officials including the prison doctors.
The trial court denied bail to Satyendra Jain in November 2022
On November 17 last year, Special Judge Vikas Dhull of the Rouse Avenue Court dismissed Jain’s request for bail in the case involving money laundering. Satyendra Jain requested bail in connection with his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on May 31, 2022, for a money laundering offence.
The central agency had launched an inquiry based on an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Jain and others under pertinent sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The AAP leader is accused of using the Hawala network to receive up to Rs. 4.81 crores from shell companies while he was a public servant through companies he owned and controlled.
