NEW DELHI: Today, Delhi High Court seeks response from the Enforcement Directorate on the Satyendar Jain’s bail plea in the money laundering case. The case was filed by Enforcement Directorate agency against him.
The bench headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma directed the party to file its response within two weeks.
The next date of hearing is on December 20.
Satyendar Jain has approached the High Court challenging a trial court order of November 17 and the court denying him bail. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader was arrested by the ED in May 2022 on allegations of money laundering.
In his bail plea, Jain argued that the special judge gave a finding in his favour that he never had one-third shareholding in the three companies through which money is alleged to have been laundered.
This demolished the entire substratum of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case which is the predicate case for the ED, he claimed.
It was also argued that even as per allegations, the notional amount attributable to Jain is ₹59 lakh, and therefore, he is entitled to bail as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED has alleged that between 2015 and 2016, when Jain was a public servant, companies “beneficially owned and controlled by him” received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
While denying him bail, special judge Vikas Dhull had observed that Jain was not entitled to the benefit of bail with respect to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
“In the opinion of this court, ‘proceeds of crime’ was the amount which was generated by applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain while working as a Minister in the Government of Delhi, for which he could not satisfactorily account for,” it underlined.
The sepcial court had rejected the defense counsel’s contention that Jain was a “minority shareholder” in the companies and said,
“Shareholding of applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain in the companies would have been relevant if the companies had earned income through legitimate means.”
Jain was stated to have made use of the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of ₹15 lakh by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators in his company.
“Jain had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher,” the order had said.