2022 (11) TMI 1387 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - committing large scale fraud with the investors and misappropriating their hardearned money - rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT - Considering the allegations and the fact that the Enforcement Directorate has already attached the properties of worth Rs.1, 28, 08, 640/- this Court can not record a finding that the accused-applicant is not prima facie guilty for committing the offence. This Court is not satisfied that the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail - the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The accused-applicant, a Managing Director of multiple companies, filed a bail application in anticipation of arrest in a money laundering case. The allegations included committing fraud with investors and laundering a significant amount of money. The Enforcement Directorate had attached properties worth Rs.1,28,08,640/-, and the accused had a history of being in prison. The defense argued that since the investigation was complete and a complaint was filed, sending the accused back to prison would serve no purpose. However, the Enforcement Directorate contended that further investigation was ongoing, and the accused was uncooperative. The Enforcement Directorate highlighted the seriousness of the offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the attachment of properties as evidence of guilt. The court, after considering the arguments, held that due to the seriousness of the allegations and the attachment of properties, the accused could not be considered prima facie innocent. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The court allowed the accused to surrender before the trial court within a week and apply for regular bail, emphasizing that the trial court should decide the bail application promptly and independently.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key arguments presented by both parties, the court's evaluation of the evidence and legal provisions, and the ultimate decision regarding the anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case.