9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1473 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - second charge relating to conspiracy - framing of charges - twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was the President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and that there are materials to show that the Enforcement Directorate has been able to collect materials which would satisfy the presumptions attached under Sections 22 and 23 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act it is not possible to hold for this Court at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence although the aforesaid fact is restricted for the consideration of bail. It is opined that at this stage when the Enforcement Directorate is about to frame the charges it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail. Conclusion - There was sufficient evidence to continue proceedings against the petitioner for money laundering. The bail application was rejected with the petitioner granted the liberty to reapply post charge framing. The prayer for bail of the petitioner namely Manik Bhattacharya is rejected - Application disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The Court considered the following core legal issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Involvement in Money Laundering Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case was assessed under the PMLA, particularly Sections 3 and 4, which define and penalize money laundering. The Court also considered the explanation to Section 3, which describes money laundering as a continuing activity. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed the allegations that the petitioner abused his position to collect money from candidates and institutions under false pretenses, thereby generating proceeds of crime. The petitioner allegedly laundered these proceeds through various entities and individuals, including his family members. Key Evidence and Findings: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented evidence, including statements from individuals involved, digital evidence, and financial records indicating the flow of funds. The ED argued that the petitioner was at the center of a scheme to offer jobs in exchange for money, with proceeds laundered through family-controlled entities. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in money laundering activities, as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, through the acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the allegations were based on statements without corroborating documentary evidence. The ED countered by highlighting the incriminating digital evidence and financial transactions. Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to suggest the petitioner's involvement in money laundering, justifying the continuation of legal proceedings against him. Consideration for Bail Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes twin conditions for granting bail: the Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose the bail and the Court's satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offense while on bail. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner, due to his influential position, could potentially interfere with the investigation if released on bail. The Court also considered the ED's ability to collect substantial evidence against the petitioner. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court considered the ED's evidence, including financial transactions and statements from multiple witnesses, which suggested a pattern of money laundering activities involving the petitioner and his family. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the twin conditions under Section 45, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he was "not guilty" of the offenses charged and that releasing him on bail could hinder the ongoing investigation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued for bail based on his age, professional history, and lack of direct evidence linking him to the alleged crimes. The ED emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of the petitioner influencing the investigation. Conclusions: The Court denied the bail application, allowing the petitioner to reapply after charges are framed, considering the substantial evidence against him and the ongoing investigation. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the application of Section 45 of the PMLA, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend before granting bail in money laundering cases. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to continue proceedings against the petitioner for money laundering. The bail application was rejected, with the petitioner granted the liberty to reapply post charge framing. Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated, "Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was the President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and that there are materials to show that the Enforcement Directorate has been able to collect materials which would satisfy the presumptions attached under Sections 22 and 23 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, I am of the view that it is not possible to hold for this Court at this stage that the petitioner is 'not guilty of such offence' although the aforesaid fact is restricted for the consideration of bail."
|
