Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 195 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences or not - siphoning off of funds - misappropriation of funds and fraud committed in connection with the affairs of Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank, Netkallappa Circle, Bengaluru - cases under other acts were filed earlier also - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, a case has been registered earlier in Crime No.69/2020 and he has been enlarged on bail, wherein, PMLA offences are not invoked and one more case was registered in Crime No.37/2020, wherein, an offence under Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act was invoked. The matter was also earlier referred to CID and got it deleted Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act and also a case has been registered and numbered as C.C.No.28892/2021 which is pending before the Court. It is also important to note that the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office has collected the source of information and the report was also received from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and collected all information and issued summons invoking Section 50 of the PMLA Act and a case was registered in ECIR/BGZO/09/2020. The allegation that this petitioner did not co-operate and the allegation is that the Crores of rupees more than 1000 Crores was misappropriated and the said amount was depositors’ money. Without obtaining the mandate from the depositors’ created advances and allowed to withdraw over and above the actual deposits and also an allegation is that the loans were sanctioned by just obtained partial coverage of mortgages and the Bank did not create charge in respect of the said properties in favour of whom, the loans were advanced. This petitioner is in custody. No doubt, the provisional order has been passed and the same has been confirmed and also questioned, which is pending. Having taken note of the allegations made in the complaint and also analysis of Bank Statement held by this petitioner and his family members and the fact is that he is the Chairman and earlier he was the Vice-President, is not in dispute and collected the source of information having acquired the deposits made by this petitioner and his family members i.e., son, wife and daughter. The main allegation is that while advancing the loan amount to 24 borrowers, the properties were not taken as security and the fictitious loan accounts are opened and money laundering to the tune of Crores of rupees utilized and depositors’ money has been siphoned by creating the fictitious loan. When such being the factual aspects, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. No doubt, the learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed by this Court. The factual aspects to be kept in mind while passing an order of granting bail and exercising the discretion and those two judgments will not comes to the aid of this petitioner instead of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondent of the Apex Court while canceling the bail comes to the conclusion that the High Court failed to take note of the fact that the huge amount of money belonging to the investors has been siphoned off has not been considered. There are no merit in the petition to enlarge him on bail - petition dismissed.
|