Supreme Court upholds trial court order framing money laundering charges against ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interefere with a Delhi High Court order that had upheld a trial court order framing charges against former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with a money-laundering case. [Tahir Hussain v Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate]..A bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed that scheduled offences in money-laundering cases can have individual complaints registered without the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) prosecution complaint being filed first."The case is only at the stage of framing of the charges by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ... Therefore, we do not want to interfere at this stage. It is made clear that the Special Court will follow the law laid down by this Court in Vijay Madanlal," the Court said..The Supreme Court was hearing Hussain's challenge to a Delhi High Court order that had refused to quash a trial court order framing charges.The High Court had said that there is no infirmity in the trial court order and Hussain, prima facie, acted in conspiracy and engaged in money laundering with proceeds of crime having been put to use for the Delhi riots of 2020.The ED has alleged that Hussain "hatched a conspiracy with his associates to fraudulently withdraw money" from the accounts of certain companies owned and controlled by him through bogus and mala fide transactions, and that this money was put to use during the riots..Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for Hussain today before the top court, said that that anti-riot laws cannot be used to initiate money-laundering proceedings. "The companies are legitimate. State prejudicing us through 3 FIRs of a dark time in this city's history. Best case scenario [for them] is a GST offence, arising out of legitimate businesses. It is not a scheduled offence."She added that the High Court had extracted the prosecution complaint and relied on it simplicitor, in the absence of a first information report (FIR) for a money-laundering offence. Justice Ramasubramanian then remarked,"If a scheduled offence is there, complaint can be in any jurisdiction where the money is laundered. A scheduled offence wherever it is committed, an independent FIR can be registered. It does not mean that FIR will have to thereafter emanate after ECIR. If there is a causal connection between FIR and prosecution complaint, court only has to look at the allegations. Rest comes during trial."Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain appeared for the respondent..[Read order]