The court denies the bail application of the Aam Aadmi Party’s prominent leader Satyendar Jain on Thursday for the 2nd time within 6 months in the case of money laundering.
Along with Jain, the court denies the bail of two more accused in this case. After this, the special judge of the CBI – Vikas Dhull said in the 55 pages order that the prima facie Satyendar Kumar Jain was actually involved in concealing the proceeds of crime to the tune of one-third of ₹4.61 crore.
According to this order, Satyendar Jain has been accused for giving some cash to entry operators based at Kolkata to bring it into 3 different companies for some shares in the sales and the income.
Other co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain were also requested the bail that is denied by the court. The judge said while doing it – they “knowingly” assisted Mr. Jain in concealing the proceeds of crime and were “prima facie guilty” of money laundering.
This case of money laundering by the ED (Enforcement Directorate) is completely based on the evidence found on the disproportionate possessions FIR that is initially filed by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in 2017. As it is already mentioned that the ED has already filed the chargesheet or better say the prosecution complaint under the applicable sections of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) again Satyendar Jain and two other accused along with 4 companies. According to the reports, the worth of this money laundering crime is around 4.5 crore in Indian rupees.
While rejecting the bails of the accused, the court also mentioned the Supreme Court’s order. This order stated that economic offences have deep-rooted conspiracies and involve huge loss of public funds”, which “need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
The order further stated that – hence, applicant Satyendar Kumar Jain is not entitled to the benefit of bail having regard to the twin conditions provided in Section 45 of the PMLA. Hence, application of applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain is dismissed.
In addition to this, the court also added – in the opinion of this court, ‘proceeds of crime’ was the amount which was generated by applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain while working as a Minister in the Government of Delhi, for which he could not satisfactorily account for.
Having regard to the fact that... was in the exclusive knowledge of Satyendar Kumar Jain and other two co-accused persons and since they have not been forthcoming in their statements regarding the share of cash given by them, therefore, whatever amount of cash was given to the Kolkata-based entry operators has to be divided equally between the accused – the court added in its statement.
After all these, it is clear that the problems of Satyendar Jain and other co-accused are not going to come down because there are sufficient evidence stating that Mr. Jain was involved in this case.
Note: Digital India 2022: All about Spy Hidden Cameras in Delhi for
security surveillance. Buy and easy to used spy camera with free home delivery.
0 Comments