TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The offence of Money Laundering is nothing but an act of financial terrorism that poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also to the integrity and sovereignty of a nation. The International Monetary Fund estimates that laundered money generates about $590 billion to $1.5 trillion per year, which constitutes approximately two to five percent of the world's gross domestic product - The offences, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum left behind to be borne by the unfortunate starry eyed petty investors. The perpetrators of such deviant schemes, including the petitioner herein, who promise utopia to their unsuspecting investors seem to have entered in a proverbial Faustian bargain and are grossly unmindful of untold miseries of the faceless multitudes who are left high and dry and consigned to the flames of suffering. The issue of retrospective application of penal laws/scheduled offences which has been vehemently raised by the petitioner, but for the purposes of the instant application, the said issue need not be gone into, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, he requested for an investigation regarding the money circulation scheme which culminated into registration of a case by the said police station. Subsequently, the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case No.118/2009 dt. 17.07.2009 got transferred to CB, CID of Odisha as per order No.189/CID dated 18.07.2009 by registering CB, CID Case No.17 dated 18.07.2009 against officials of M/s. FIPL under the aforesaid sections. 3. On 12.12.2012, this Court while hearing W.P.(C) No.7693/2011 All India Networkers Welfare Trust and another vs. Superintendent of Police, CID and Others, W.P.(C) No.7693/2011., directed that looking at the massive financial impact in the case, the investigation of the aforesaid case be handed over to the CBI. In compliance with the said direction, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI ) 1 All India Networkers Welfare Trust and another vs. Superintendent of Police, CID and Others, W.P.(C) No.7693/2011. took over the investigation. Accordingly, CBI Economic Offence Wing, Kolkata registered a case vide No.-RC 02/E/2013-KOL on 01.03.2013 after duly taking over the FIR of CB, CID, Odisha Case No.17/2009 registered U/s. 406/420/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gious sum of ill-gotten wealth with the singular intention of concealing the original source of funds and to project the tainted money as untainted ex facie constitute the offence of money laundering. 7. Scrutiny of the books of account of FIPL further reveals that about ₹ 152 Crores were transferred to one M/s. Eve Industries which were further layered by laundering the same to one M/s. Great Entertainments and further to the accounts of M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd. where the petitioner was also a Director at the relevant point of time (financial year 2009-10). In this way, the complicity of the petitioner in the instant case is quite visible. This money was transferred to the Bank A/c No.00421300000134 of M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd. whose account was being maintained in DCB Bank, Andheri, Mumbai and A/c. No.020010200044907 maintained in Axis Bank, Lokhandwala Branch, Mumbai. The details of cheques through which the money was transferred from the accounts of M/s. Great Entertainments to the above accounts of M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd. are as under: Sl.No. Name of Bank and Branch of M/s. Great Entertainment A/C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCB Bank 00421300000134 3,00,00,000/- 4 26/05/2009 Axis Bank 020010200044907 3,50,00,000/- 5 04/06/2009 Axis Bank 020010200044907 5,00,00,000/- 6 24/04/2009 DCB Bank 00421300000134 3,00,00,000/- 7 27/05/2009 Axis Bank 020010200044907 7,00,00,000/- Total 25,00,00,000/- It was also discovered during investigation that the following persons were the Directors of M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd. during the relevant time when the transactions of ₹ 25 crores took place as mentioned above. The directorship of the accused company has been given hereunder: Sl. No. Name of the Director Period From To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata Zonal Office 10-08-2016 23-08-2016 No - Kolkata Zonal Office 08-09-2016 28-09-2016 No - Kolkata Zonal Office 18-10-2016 08-11-2016 No - Kolkata Zonal Office 27-04-2017 16-05-2017 Yes 17.05.2017 Kolkata Zonal Office 16-11-2017 05-12-2017 No - Bhubaneswar Sub-Zonal Office 08-12-2017 04-01-2018 No - Bhubaneswar Sub-Zonal Office 12-01-2018 31-01-2018 No - Bhubaneswar Sub-Zonal Office 31-01-2018 07-02-2018 No - Bhubaneswar Sub-Zonal Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offence of money laundering. He further submitted that petitioner is alleged to have been engaged in sham transfer of shares, which ex facie appears to be bogus transactions. Curiously, no money was transferred to the account of the original share holder i.e. Zaheer Ahmed. It appears quite absurd that when the shares held by Zaheer Ahmed were claimed to have been transferred in the name of one Shamshad Alam [Accused No.4 in C.M.C. (PMLA) No.47 of 2017], there was no reason for transfer of monies, therefore, to the account of the company. The said transaction on first blush appears to defy good logic but a closer scrutiny shows that the same is a well hatched conspiracy and an act of symptomatic dishonesty. Again these 718854 shares have been stated to have been re-transferred to the said Shamshad Alam from the account of Zaheer Ahmed as per resolution dated 31.08.2009 and the entire 718854 shares were allegedly reverted back to Zaheer Ahmed, the father of the present petitioner. However, the most selfdefeating and telling aspect of the matter is that the said Shamshad Alam vide his statement dated 17.09.2018 recorded U/s. 50(2) and 50(3) of PMLA, 2002 has admitted that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. further reveals that a self cheque bearing No.519851 was issued on 17.05.2010 from A/c No.1579417 of ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS Bank) and against this cheque, cash of ₹ 1.5 Crores was withdrawn under the signature of the petitioner herein. Statements of accounts of M/s. Ruby Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s. Pal News Media Pvt. Ltd also reveals that cash has been withdrawn on several occasions through self cheques under the signatures of the petitioner herein. Another telling aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has stated categorically in a statement that he knew Wali Mohammad since the last 15 to 20 years and that he was earlier working as an Ola Cab Driver and subsequently upon joining the company he ascended to the post of a director. This very statement makes it clear that the offending shell company was virtually owned by the petitioner and his father who were running the show and all the other directors were either sham or fictionalized. 14. The Petitioner, thus, prima facie seems to have a direct and active role in laundering the tainted money generated from the aforestated scheduled offence. In this context, the contention of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as continued offence as long as accused remains in possession, causes concealment of the nature of the money or continues to mask the tainted money as untainted. Enforcement Directorate, is not investigating the Scheduled offences but the offence of money laundering which is a distinct and separate offence committed after the commission of Scheduled offence and which continues to be committed as long as the possession, acquisition and the projection of tainted money as untainted continues. 17. In the instant case, the petitioner has been in possession of the proceeds of crime and it appears that he along with others have attempted to project the same as untainted money by transferring the same to different bank accounts in a bid to camouflage it and project it to be genuine transactions. The contention of the petitioner in so far as the question of being a pre-existing knowledge as per Section 3(b) of the Act and in order to be held culpable under Section 4 of the Act, the same deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the question as to whether the accused had prior knowledge needs to be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case. Strong reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r view of the matter has been reiterated in Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement.(2018) 11 SCC 46. It may further be held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753. is untenable in view of the fact that Section 45 has been amended (by the Amendment Act 13 of 2018) whereby the original expression imprisonment for a term of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule (pre-amendment) now stands substituted by the expression no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond . Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to Section 45 of the Act does not hold good. A similar sentiment has been echoed by the apex court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement. (2019) 9 SCC 24. 20. The contention of the petitioner that the prosecution do not have the power to file Supplementary Complaint does not find favour with this Court for the reason that the power to conduct further investigation as envisaged in Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relates to a police investigation under Chapter XII of the Code. The said powers wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nanced. In view of the judicial pronouncements and the aforestated amendment to the Act it is clear that this issue is no longer res intergra. 21. Another material fact which has been suppressed by the Petitioner herein and which warrants a serious view of the Court is that the he had filed a bail application before the learned Special Court (PMLA) on 25.11.2019 but the District and Sessions Judge, Khurda rejected on 4.12.2019 returning a finding that, materials on record disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioner for commission of the offence of money laundering. The said order dated 4.12.2019 challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition10 before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and suffered dismissal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another bail application before the learned Special Court (PMLA) on 19.12.2019 and an interim bail application on 23.12.2019. The learned Special Court (PMLA) on 6.01.2020 rejected the interim bail application and on 22.01.2020 rejected the bail application with the finding that the said successive bail application was filed on the health ground of the mother of the Petitioner herein and the said ground was considered and rejected by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enting of credibility from the innocent investors. The offenders often target the unsuspecting, rural and economically distressed populations of our state who while hoping for a dreamy return, part with their hard-earned monies. The Apex Court has taken a very serious view in cases involving large scale white collar economic offences such as State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751. NimmagaddaPrasad vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466., CBI vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, Crl Appeal. No. 1711 of 2019. Seniors Fraud Investigation Office vs. NittinJohari, (2019) 9 SCC 165. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439. State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364. CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2017 (13) SCC 751. Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India, (2014)8 SCC 768. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40. Ram Narayan Popli vs.CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641. Manoranjana Sinh vs. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218. Union of India vs. Hassan Ali Khan (2011) 10 SCC 235. which are relied upon. 24. The factors adversely affecting Petitioner s claim are that he has not cooperated with the prosecution and has continuously avoided summons issued to him by the Investigating officer for recording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
