Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On AAP Leader Satyendar Jain's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

After four days of hearing, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 17) reserved its verdict on Aam Aadmi Party leader and PMLA-accused Satyendar Jain's bail plea.Jain was arrested by the central agency in May 2022 on charges of money laundering. He, along with others, were accused of laundering money through three companies during 2010-12 and 2015-16. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal heard his special leave petition against an April 2023 Delhi High Court order denying him bail. The AAP leader is currently out on interim bail on medical grounds, which was granted to him by the top court in May last year.On the last day, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) objected to the release of the former minister on bail by arguing that he exercised de facto control over the companies allegedly at the centre of a purported money-laundering racket. Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, appearing for the central agency, told the bench that Jain exercised effective control even after giving up his position as a director in the companies. He argued, “Unaccounted cash of over four crores were received in these companies, through entries. This is not disputed. Satyendar Jain, however, has maintained that he had nothing to do with this amount or the companies. That's the crux of his case. His not being a director has no significance. He was de facto in control of these companies through his family members…Co-accused Vaibhav and Ankush Jain were only dummies. The entire amount that was received by these companies can be attributed to Satyendar Jain.”During today's hearing, the law officer also cautioned the court against setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the high court which have previously denied Jain's request for bail. In this connection, Raju pointed to the circumspection with which the Supreme Court has ordinarily interfered with concurrent findings. In response to this, Justice Trivedi pointed out, "Concurrent final findings, not tentative findings.""Even findings on facts," ASG Raju insisted. Before concluding his arguments, he once again repeated that the premium of the shares of the Jain-linked company had been inflated, while the buyback rates were low to provide a cover for the money-laundering exercise. The allegation levelled against the AAP leader is that he effectively controlled these companies, shares of which were purchased by certain Kolkata-based entities after routing them through shell companies, using black money provided by Jain's associates. These shares were later bought back by co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain. According to the ED's chargesheet, which originates out of a disproportionate assets case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), this is the manner in which money was laundered, with Satyendar Jain being the mastermind behind the alleged scheme. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, however, vehemently denied these allegations on behalf of Jain. At the outset of his rejoinder, he urged the court to look at all the evidence and the circumstances in a holistic manner. "One straw doesn't break a camel's back. It's the cumulative effect. Your Lordships need to take a holistic view of the case."While questioning the necessity and proportionality of the arrest, Singhvi urged the court to remember the small proportion of shares held by Satyendar Jain and his decision to resign from his post as a director of the two of the companies at the centre of the controversy. The senior counsel argued -"The ED's entire basis has been shareholding. Later they added directorship. But they have applied the test of control because they know that they can't make a case on the basis of shareholding. On the other hand, it is easy to argue control. Shareholding, directorship, land, possession of money...they cannot make out these cases. These are objective facts, unlike 'control'. The families of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain are major shareholders. They exercised control. It's a peculiar case because there are people who owned up and said that the money and shares belonged to them. But ignoring this, the ED says actual control was exercised by Satyendar Jain. That's why they are saying 'mastermind', 'architect', 'control'. These are amorphous terms which if at all, can only be proved in trial. The man certainly cannot be held in jail on the basis of this.""Moreover, he has already been incarcerated for a year and continues to be in jail despite getting bail in the predicate offence. It also must be remembered that the ECIR was lodged in 2017, and he was arrested only after five years," Singhvi added. In the same vein, Senior Advocate N Hariharan also questioned why the 'threat perception' that Jain would intimidate witnesses and try to influence trial, which has been cited by the ED as one of the reasons to oppose Jain's bail plea, did not exist in these five years.Echoing the submissions made during his opening arguments, Singhvi once again insisted...

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On AAP Leader Satyendar Jain's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Awstika Das

Tags