Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday informed the court hearing AAP Minister Satyendar Jain's bail plea that he has instructions to move a plea seeking transfer of bail proceedings from the current court. [Satyendar Jain v. ED]..Special Judge Geetanjli Goel probed whether there was any particular ground to seek transfer after the lengthy arguments."Any particular ground? After such lengthy arguments?", she asked.She was informed by the ASG that an application will be moved and subsequently posted the matter on September 20..In the last hearing, Senior Counsel N Hariharan stressed the alleged role attributed to Jain doesn't fall in the ambit of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the submissions, the calculations from the material placed on record by the ED, the purported disproportionate assets totalled to ₹60 lakh, but instead the probe agency was trying to attribute the entire amount mentioned in the case to Jain. 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 against Jain. 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 PMLA.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..For Hariharan though, the question that “baffled” him was, “Who was cheated (in the case)?” The court then reiterated a query it had raised and asked, “Companies were cheated and they laundered the same money?”Hariharan subsequently pointed out that his client had only offered structural services to the company in question as he is an architect.On the contrary, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju along with Advocates Zoheb Hossain and NK Matta for the ED have contended that Jain was actually in control of the shell companies used as “fronts”.“De facto control. These persons (co-accused) are dummy persons. On paper, it could be that the shareholders are beneficiaries. But if they are his cronies, then it'll have to be looked into. Not only for the purpose of trial, but also bail. Vaibhav and Ankush (co-accused) extensively interrogated on source and funds. And it has revealed they weren't flushed with funds. They couldn't justify source,” Raju submitted earlier.The ASG also argued that since the previous rejection of Jain’s bail plea, there was no substantial change in material circumstances.According to Raju, the retraction of a purported statement made by co-accused Vaibhav four years ago indicated that the Minister “wields considerable influence”.Along with Jain, the court will also be deciding on the bail plea of co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain..Apart from Senior Advocate N Hariharan advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Vivek Jain, Siddharth Yadav, Viabhav Yadav, Syed Atif, Tushar Yadav, Rajat Gautam, Harish Kumar and Abhinav Jain represented Jain and other accused Poonam Jain and accused company M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Advocate Dr Sushil Kumar Gupta and advocates Radhe Shyam Ahuja, Ishvaaku Marwah, Amarinder Singh Baweja, Nishchay Bajaj, Avi Mitra, Aakriti Goel and Sunita Gupta appeared for co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain and other accused.