'Case That Rocked Entire Banking System': Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Yes Bank Founder Rana Kapoor In Money Laundering Case

The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to grant bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor in a money laundering case. He has been accused of receiving illegal gratification in exchange for sanctioning bad loans to high-profile borrowers. The Yes Bank co-promoter has been behind bars since March 2020. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was hearing a special leave petition filed by Kapoor challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny his second bail application, which he had filed on the ground of prolonged incarceration. "Normally, the period undergone is substantial. But, this is a case that rocked the entire banking system," Justice Khanna said right at the outset, "That's a fact." Was I not correct when I said his actions affected Yes Bank, he asked. "Did the Reserve Bank of India not have to step in to protect the investors?" During the last hearing, the Supreme Court judge had a minor disagreement in court with Kapoor's counsel and senior advocate Harish Salve over whether the Yes Bank founder had pushed the bank into a financial crisis by allegedly receiving illegal gratification in exchange for sanctioning bad loans to high-profile borrowers."Was what I said factually correct, or not? Did Yes Bank go into difficulty - yes or no?" Justice Khanna asked Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was appearing for Kapoor today. "No," Singhvi replied, "This did not rock the foundation...""Did Yes Bank go into difficulty?" Justice Khanna shot back."Of course it did. 'Difficulty' is a mild word. It went into a lot of difficulty. There was a bailout package," Singhvi answered, before adding:"With the greatest humility, I say, this is not a relevant consideration for keeping a man behind bars...That it rocked the foundation of the economy. Secondly, it did not, in fact, rock the foundation of the economy. Allow me to place my submissions. There are three judgements - KA Najeeb, Sanjay Chandra, Sanjay Agarwal - which hold that Article 21, period of incarceration, right to liberty, undertrial, pre-conviction are vital considerations. That is paramount. Second, Kapoor has been behind bars since March 2020 and has been incarcerated for three years and five months. He has undergone more than the minimum sentence. He is just shy of completing 3.5 years in jail. Can these years he spent in jail be returned to him, if he were to be acquitted? Kindly see the totality of the situation."The senior counsel also told the bench that after the initial complaint filed by the prosecution in July, there have been three subsequent complaints, giving rise to a 'very important issue under Article 21':"This court will have to decide this in another case. This practice of filing successive driblets...creating liberty to do more investigation. This is non-ending and a very important issue under Article 21 someday. The investigation is never complete because there is always something more to do. Also note that the PMLA designated court - which is the sole court - is overburdened. The court itself has recorded this in one place, that it is overburdened."However, the bench refused to be swayed. Justice Khanna said, "Dr Singhvi, we have understood what you had to say. But, this is not a case for us to interfere. Move after some time."Singhvi pressed on, pointing out that a two-week-long moratorium was issued during a temporary restructuring exercise in March 2020 placing an embargo on withdrawals over Rs 50,000. "No depositor lost any money. The State Bank of India and consortium comes in, invests Rs 10,000 crores at a share price of Rs 10 per share. That share price is doubled. There is no loss of public money. But, Kapoor had demitted office in 2019. These are considerations this court will have to keep in mind. In Sanjay Chandra, evocative words were used...""There are some cases which are extraordinary," Justice Khanna replied. Kapoor will have to wait for some time, the judge told the senior counsel, who ultimately expressed his desire to withdraw the petition.Cases involving loss of huge amounts of public money should be dealt with expeditiously : Supreme Court to Centre"Mr Raju, what is the stage of trial?" Justice Khanna asked Additional Solicitor-General for India SV Raju. "In all these cases, where high stakes are involved or where there has been allegations that large amounts of money has been lost, you will have to take them on priority basis. Under the normal law, the period for investigation is 90 days. You go into 360 days...There is something wrong."The law officer explained that the Enforcement Directorate faced difficulties in completing the investigation swiftly because of the complexities of the financial transactions under the scanner. "There are hundreds of shell companies. Moneys are sent abroad. The investigation for the money and the money trail is so difficult...Then they say you are filing in bits and pieces. Because we get information in bits and pieces.""You cannot...

'Case That Rocked Entire Banking System': Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Yes Bank Founder Rana Kapoor In Money Laundering Case

Awstika Das

Tags