Satyendar Jain cited memory loss due to COVID-19 when faced with documents: ED to Delhi court

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed a Delhi court that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendar Jain cited memory loss due to COVID-19 when he was confronted with documents to show his association with entities in connection with a money laundering case [Satyendar Jain v. ED]..Opposing the Minister's bail before Special Judge Geetanjli Goel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued, “While probing we came across certain similar transactions relating to Lala Sher Singh Trust where he was the President…We first asked him names of entities, trusts he is associated with. He didn't disclose he was associated with Sher Singh. Today he has,” argued Raju, referring to a submission of the defence counsel.The ASG argued that Jain had first said that he had no clue about the trust in question but later changed his version to say he had nothing to do with it.“He said he hasn't heard of this trust. He then said no family member is involved...First hide, then say nothing to do with this trust. He was confronted with documents to show, what he’s telling ED, is false. From denial he's become a little better. He then says he had COVID-19 that's why he lost his memory. When confronted with documents he comes with a defence of memory loss,” added Raju..Appearing for Jain, Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Advocate Bhavook Chauhan, on the other hand, contended that the ED had tried to show a connection between the Minister accused who had 'Jain' surnames. However, Satyendar Jain was stated to be not related to all Jains.“Doesn't mean Satyendar Jain is related to all Jains in the country,” the senior lawyer said..Jain, who was sent to 14 days of judicial remand on Monday, also referred to poor health, particularly sleep apnea, to seek bail.His counsel pointed out there was no chance of tampering with the evidence, as it had already been collected..“Witnesses are available. Satisfies the triple test… no such allegation of influencing witnesses anywhere. When I was outside and had a chance of influencing, there’s no such allegation against me. It has been deliberately raised to defeat bail,” submitted Hariharan.Further, the ED was stated to have already quantified the disproportionate assets, besides establishing the alleged trail of money in the case.It was also submitted that Jain had appeared and recorded his statements before the investigation agency on seven occasions and cooperated on “every scope” with the agency..According to ASG Raju, the matter essentially involved converting cash into something seemingly lawful and money laundering.Judge Goel asked the ASG as to what remained to be unearthed. He responded by saying the further entries or money trail was required to be seen, as Jain had remained uncooperative in the probe..The order on Jain's bail plea will be pronounced on June 18..The CBI had initially registered a case under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered 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.On April 5 this year, the ED, on the basis of its investigation into the money laundering aspect, provisionally 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..The enforcement agency alleged that between 2015 and 2016, when Jain was a public servant, these companies “beneficially owned and controlled by him” received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.