The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned the bail pleas of jailed Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain and his co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain challenging a special court's order denying them bail in the money laundering case.
The court directed Satyendar Jain's counsel to submit written submissions by January 18, the next date of hearing.
All three were denied bail on November 17, 2022.
Appearing for the minister, senior advocate N. Hariharan read relevant portions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case's charge sheet to the court.
Referring to a chart showing shareholding pattern, he argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has to show that one-third of the company share holdings have to be associated to Jain.
Also read | Prison officials file complaint, allege Satyendar Jain threatened them
About the disproportionate assets (DA) related offence, he stated that it is a period-related.
At this, the bench remarked: "You say that you were not the director then."
In response, Hariharan said that the period during which Jain was the director hasn't been considered. "During the cheque period I had no shareholdings, the shares were transferred to my wife," he argued.
Moving further, referring to the details of directors of the company downloaded from the Ministry's website, Hariharan told the court that the balance sheets were not signed by Jain. "Post 2013, I (Satyendar Jain) have not signed a single deed," he said.
Furthermore, he argued on proceeds of crime as defined under S.2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Reading the findings of the ED, where they state that the assets of the company are same at the end of the cheque period, he argued that this is 'Notional' and that 'No Notional Attribution' cannot be made in a PMLA.
Moreover, he argued that there is no laundering in this case. "A shareholder can have nothing to do with the company and it cannot be attributed to Satyendar Jain," he said.
"The money the ED is talking about came to the company, it cannot be attributed as 'Proceeds of Crime'," he argued.
The HC, on December 1, had sought the response of the ED on Jain's bail plea in the case. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had directed the ED to file its response within two weeks.
On December 12, 2022, the HC issued notice to the ED on bail pleas filed by Jain's co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain.
The ED filed a charge sheet before a court against Jain and others in connection with the case on July 27. It was alleged that Jain, while holding the office as a Minister in the Delhi government, during the period from February 14, 2015 to May 31, 2017, had acquired assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Jain was placed under arrest on May 30, by the central agency under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Also read | 'Satyendar Jain will not be allowed visitors for 15 days'
The ED had initiated a money laundering investigation on the basis of the FIR registered by the CBI in 2017 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 against the Minister, his wife Poonam Jain, Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain, and Ankush Jain.
A charge sheet was filed by the CBI on December 3, 2018, against Jain, his wife1, and other accused.
Earlier, the ED had provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to companies beneficially owned and controlled by Jain on March 31, 2022.
