Should Trial In Predicate Offence Be Concluded Before Trial In Money Laundering Case? Supreme Court To Decide
The Supreme Court (on July 12), while hearing a Special Leave Petition that raised the question of law whether the trial in predicate offence should conclude first before the commencement of trial in a money laundering case, said that the matter needs to be heard. The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing the plea of Santiago Martin, a giant...
The Supreme Court (on July 12), while hearing a Special Leave Petition that raised the question of law whether the trial in predicate offence should conclude first before the commencement of trial in a money laundering case, said that the matter needs to be heard.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing the plea of Santiago Martin, a giant in India's lottery industry, against the Special Court's order refusing to defer his trial in a money laundering case until the disposal of the predicate case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
During the hearing, Justice Oka was also heard asking the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) counsel Zoheb Hussain:
“Is it not in your interest that the trial of predicate offence should be concluded (first)?”
Essentially, Martin was an accused in the case registered by the CBI, Cochin. Based on this, the ED filed a complaint implicating seven accused persons, including Martin, in a PMLA Case. Following this, the petitioner filed an application seeking to keep in abeyance the PMLA case till the final disposal of the predicate case, i.e., the case registered by the CBI. However, the Special Court rejected the same and stated that the two cases were independent and separate. It is against this order that the petitioner has now approached the Supreme Court.
The issue raised in the petition was, “In the sequence of the trial between the predicate offence and the PMLA case, which case should take precedence?”
Previously, the Court had, while staying the trial, also sought the response of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in the present appeal. The trial is pending before the Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam, Kerala.
At the beginning of today's hearing, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi along with Advocate-On-Record Rohini Musa informed the Court that there are similar matters pending before the Court. Following this, Hussain submitted that there is an order from Justice Khanna saying that the discretion lies with the Trial Court.
“Because, today both the cases, predicate and PMLA are at the stage of framing the charge. The predicate offence has been pending at the stage of framing the charge for years together.,” he added.
At this Justice Oka asked him “Is it not in your interest that the trial of predicate offence should be concluded (first)?” Ultimately, the Court said that the matter requires hearing and ordered
“Counsel for ED seeks time to file counter. To be heard alongwith SLP Diary no. 2238 of 2023. It is open for respondent to file a counter.”
It may also be noted that one of the reasons cited by the petitioner for approaching the Supreme Court is the pendency of the matter in M/s. BhartiCement Corporation Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement. In this matter, the Telangana High Court had held that the proceedings in the PMLA case should await the outcome of the alleged predicate case. The same is pending for consideration before the Apex Court. Given that the issue is the same as the one raised in the present plea, the petitioner has approached the Top Court.
In view of this, the petitioner, in his petition, has averred that the trial of the predicate case is to be conducted first. Thus, the present trial in the money laundering case should be kept abeyance during the pendency of the predicate case.
Case Title: S MARTIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., SLP(Crl) No. 4768/2024