My fault is I became a minister; else there would be no case: AAP's Satyendar Jain seeks bail in money laundering case

Former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain on Friday sought bail through his counsel in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) while attributing the reason for his arrest to becoming a minister and joining public life [Satyendar Jain v. ED]. .Senior Advocate N Hariharan made arguments before Special Judge Vikas Dhull, saying, “Nothing can be attributed to me. My fault is that I became a minister, joined public life. That is my fault.".The ED had attached immovable properties worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd, and other persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. This case was based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 (check period), which he could not satisfactorily account for.The enforcement agency alleged that these companies “beneficially owned and controlled" by Jain received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.The claim has been denied by Jain, who has argued that he was nowhere related to the dealings of the companies, as he was only a “minority shareholder”.."Complete travesty of justice that this man is in custody. As such, a minority shareholder could he or she have exercised such control over the companies?” asked Hariharan during today's hearing.The senior lawyer illustrated that a director was only an agent of the company. “During the check period, I was nowhere there in the company. Entire case is that if I had not joined politics there would be no case,” he stressed.The notional value being attributed to Jain was an “exercise alien to law", Hariharan argued, for the shareholding pattern of the companies showed that even in the “best case scenario,” the ED could only attribute a sum of ₹59 lakh to him.Additionally, Hariharan said even if one added ₹6 lakh as per shareholding of one more company named in the case, the total notional value, as per their own case, would still be less than ₹1 crore. Therefore, it would fall within the proviso of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He was referring to the amended proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA after the recent verdict in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which states, “Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs (sic).”.Following the conclusion of the defence's submissions, the ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, will make arguments on November 5.