Breaking | Special Court Sends Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik To Judicial Custody In Money Laundering Case
story
Twelve days after Maharashtra Minorities Development Minister Nawab Malik arrest, a Special Court remanded him in judicial custody. The Enforcement Directorate had arrested him in a money laundering case on February 23, 2022.Special Judge RS Rokade remanded Malik in judicial custody for 14 days.During the previous remand hearing the ED clarified that Rs 5 lakhs and not Rs 55 lakhs was...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Twelve days after Maharashtra Minorities Development Minister Nawab Malik arrest, a Special Court remanded him in judicial custody. The Enforcement Directorate had arrested him in a money laundering case on February 23, 2022.
Special Judge RS Rokade remanded Malik in judicial custody for 14 days.
During the previous remand hearing the ED clarified that Rs 5 lakhs and not Rs 55 lakhs was allegedly paid by Malik to Dawood Ibrahim's sister Haseena Parkar between 1999-2005 for the Kurla property.
However, his ED custody was extended after the ED said that they were unable to interrogate Malik due to his hospital.
ED alleged that Malik in connivance with D-gang members i.e. Haseena Parker, Salim Patel and Sardar Khan hatched a criminal conspiracy for usurping one Munira Plumber's ancestral property in Kurla having current market value of around Rs.300 crores. Thus, it is proceeds of crime under section section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, the ED claimed. The ED relied on documents executed between March 1999 to September 2005.
The agency further claimed that Malik had "illegally occupied/usurped another property in Kurla, without there being valid documents of sale and by threatening the owners of the land".
In a subsequent proceeding, Malik has challenged his arrest in the Bombay High Court. He has sought a declaration of 'illegal arrest' and immediate release from custody.
Malik claimed that there was a breach of section 19 of the PMLA Act and section 41A of the CrPC as he was served with a summons by the Enforcement Directorate after his detention. He further alleged that PMLA couldn't be applied for an offence allegedly committed 20 years ago, before the act was enacted.
Malik said there was no predicate offence made out as he had nothing to do with the D-gang. He said the Power of Attorney on the basis of which the property was sold to him permitted sale. So the original owner couldn't feign ignorance now.