Why the Special Court denied Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain bail in ED's money laundering case

Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain was prima facie involved in the offence of money laundering of more than ₹1 crore, a Special Court ruled today while refusing to grant him bail [ED v. Satyendar Jain]..In a 55-page order, Special Judge Vikas Dhull observed that Jain was not entitled to the benefit of bail with respect to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act."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," it underlined..The ED 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.The Court said that the accounts of three companies - M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd and M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd - named in the case were only used for parking of the personal funds of Jain and the co-accused. In this light, the Court held,"Since three persons had given the cash to the Kolkata based entry operators, therefore, accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.4.61 Crore has to be divided by three and the amount so arrived is Rs.1.54 Crore, which is beyond the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore as provided in Section 45 of PMLA and hence, applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain is not entitled for bail on this ground.".The Court rejected the defense counsel's contention that Jain was a "minority shareholder" in the companies and said,"Shareholding of applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain in the companies would have been relevant if the companies had earned income through legitimate means.".Jain was stated to have made use of the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of ₹15 lakh by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators in his company."Jain had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher," the order said.Referring to a Supreme Court dictum, the Court underlined that money laundering was a serious economic offence and that such offences constituted a class apart and required to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.It was also noted that the other two accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain assisted the politician in the "concealment" of proceeds of crime and "projecting the proceeds of crime to be untainted" by claiming the proceeds of crime to be their unaccounted income..Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Special Public Prosecutors Zoheb Hossain and NK Matta represented the ED.Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Advocates Vivek Jain, Vaibhav Yadav, Mohd Irshad and Kumud Ranjan Mishra appeared for Satyendar Jain. Advocates Dr Sushil Kumar Gupta, Sunita Gupta, RS Ahuja, Avi Mitra, Nishchay Bajaj and Aakriti Goel represented Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain..Satyendar Jain: Long arguments, case transfer and more; Read what unfolded in run up to today's bail order.[Read Order]