Very influential politician, had de facto control of companies: ED's key arguments opposing Satyendar Jain bail plea

While opposing the bail plea of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that he was a “very influential politician” who converted “black money into white money” and tampered with evidence [Satyendar Jain v. ED]..Here are five important arguments made by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, before Rouse Avenue Courts Special Judge Vikas Dhull..Raju submitted that Jain was an influential politician, who not only converted black money to white, but also tampered with evidence. “How do you tamper... by fabricating evidence,” he said. The ASG relied on a purported statement of one JP Mohta - whom he called the “link” between the Kolkata-based hawala operators and the companies allegedly controlled by Jain - to call the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) politician as “kingpin” of all the activities. Jain’s exit from the companies was termed to be "only on paper” whereas the activities, namely, accommodation entries, were stated to have continued even after his exit. “This shows that de facto control was with Satyendar Jain,” said Raju. The five companies named in the case were stated to be “just paper companies” for the purposes of monetary transactions. “They didn't do any real business or intrinsic value,” the ASG submitted. The ED argued that whether or not the scheduled or predicate offence registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case existed, could not be argued in the proceedings before the present court. “Chargesheet has already been filed and court has taken cognisance of the predicate offence. Court has accepted a prime facie case. That hasn't been challenged,” Raju pointed out..The arguments will continue on November 9..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 CBI allegations 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 ED 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..While arguing for Jain's bail, Senior Advocate N Hariharan had earlier argued,“Nothing can be attributed to me. My fault is that I became a minister, joined public life. That is my fault."Jain denied the ED's claim, arguing that he was nowhere related to the dealings of the companies, as he was only a “minority shareholder”.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..My fault is I became a minister; else there would be no case: AAP's Satyendar Jain seeks bail in money laundering case.[Read a live account of the hearing]