New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. Jain was arrested in this case in May 2022. He has been on medical bail since May 2023. The apex court ordered him to surrender.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal dismissed Jain’s bail plea and directed him to surrender before the jail authorities. Jain’s lawyer contended before the court that his client is not well. However, Justice Trivedi said he has to surrender now. The bench also rejected bail plea by co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in the case.
"It is not possible to hold that appellants had complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of PMLA," the bench said. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
“Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants have miserably failed to satisfy us that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences”, said the bench.
The bench said there remains no shadow of doubt that the appellant- Satyendar Kumar Jain had conceptualized idea of accommodation entries against cash and was responsible for the accommodation entries totalling to Rs. 4.81 crores (approx.) received through the Kolkata based entry operators in the bank accounts of the four companies i.e. M/s. Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Paryas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Indo Metalimpex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., by paying cash and the said companies were controlled and owned by him and his 46 family.
“Though it is true that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and directors, the lifting of corporate veil is permissible when such corporate structures have been used for committing fraud or economic offences or have been used as a facade or a sham for carrying out illegal activities”, said the bench.
The bench notes that according to the ED, Satyendar Kumar Jain was the conceptualizer, initiator and supervisor for the entire operation of the accommodation entries.
The ED alleged that the accommodation entries totalling to Rs.4.81 crores were received during the period 2015-16 from Kolkata based entry operators in the bank accounts of the four companies – Paryas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., Indo Metalimpex Pvt. Ltd., Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., which companies were owned/controlled by him and his family members, and the cash totalling Rs.4,65,99,635/- approximately was paid to the said entry operators.
“It has been also alleged that the appellant Satyendar Kumar Jain received accommodation entries of Rs.15 lakhs in his company J.J. Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2015-16 from the said Kolkata based entry operators by paying cash amounts of Rs.15 lakhs and commission of Rs.16,800/-. Thus, it has been alleged that 33 Satyendar Kumar Jain committed offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA by actually acquiring, possessing, concealing and using the process of bank to tune of Rs.4,81,16,435/- and projecting and claiming the same as untainted”, noted the apex court.
The bench noted that it has also been found that the appellants - Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain had assisted the appellant-Satyendar Kumar Jain by making false declarations under the IDS each of them declaring alleged undisclosed income of Rs.8.26 crores in order to protect Satyendar Kumar Jain.
The bench said though it was sought to be submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the said declarations under IDS having been held to be “void” in terms of Section 193 of FA, 2016 by the income tax authorities, the same could not be looked into in the present proceedings, the said submission cannot be accepted.
“The declarations made by the appellants-Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain under IDS have not been accepted by the Income Tax authorities on the ground that they had misrepresented the fact that the investments in the said companies belonged to the said appellants, which in fact belonged to Mr. Satyendar Kumar Jain. The appellants could not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongdoing of filing the false declarations to mislead the Income Tax authorities, and now to submit in the present proceedings under PMLA that the said declarations under the IDS were void”, said the bench.
The apex court said the declarations made by them under the IDS though were held to be void, the observations and proceedings recorded in the said orders passed by the Authorities and by the High Court cannot be brushed aside merely because the said declarations were deemed to be void under Section 193 of the Finance Act, 2016. “The said proceedings clearly substantiates the case of the respondent ED as alleged in the Prosecution Complaint under the PMLA”, said the bench.
In May last year, the apex court had granted interim bail to Jain, a former minister in the AAP government, on medical grounds. The court had extended the interim bail on several occasions. Jain was arrested by Enforcement Directorate in May 2022, on the charge of laundering money through four companies allegedly linked to him. He moved the apex court against the April 6, 2023 order of the Delhi High Court dismissing his regular bail application in the case.
The ED arrested Jain on the basis of a CBI FIR registered against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Jain has denied these allegations. He was granted regular bail by the trial court on September 6, 2019 in the case registered by the CBI.
Read more
SC reserves verdict of bail plea of AAP leader Satyendar Jain
