Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Money Laundering Case

Single Judge Justice Jaspreet Singh denied him the relief, considering the comprehensive money trail the Enforcement Directorate (ED) put forth in the case against him.

“…considering the material available on record including the flow charts which clearly demonstrates the origin of funds and it also explains how it finds its way into the accounts of the applicant and its use by the applicant, and there is material against the applicant to link him with the movement and trail of funds to and from the two firms M/s. Vikas Construction and M/s. Aaghaaz.”

The Court categorically noted that it could not persuade itself to form a prima facie satisfaction as per Section 45 of the PMLA, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty or may not commit an offence on bail.

As per the ED's case, Ansari used the two firms (M/s Vikas Construction and M/s Aaghaaz) to launder money. He was booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and arrested in November 2022.

It is the case of the ED that a partnership firm named M/s. Vikas Construction was the prime vehicle Ansari used to commit scheduled offences and generate the proceeds of crime.

The firm allegedly usurped government land in districts Mau and Ghazipur by resorting to forgery, cheating, and criminal trespass. The firm was used to acquire public contracts, so whenever the bid was made by the instant firm, the contracts invariably went to the said firm.

The said firm used to procure loans from the public banks to construct go-downs, which then were given as rent to the Food Corporation of India and the Uttar Pradesh State Ware Housing Corporation, and the rent received from them was to the tune of several crores.

Additionally, a subsidy was also received from NABARD to the tune of more than 67 lakhs. The amount generated from the rent received was routed not only into the account of M/s. Vikas Construction, but also in the other family firm, M/s. Aashaaz and by creating layers thereafter, the money was withdrawn both by cash and deposited in the loan account of M/s Vikas Construction to procure immovable properties at such rates, which were substantially much lower than the market price.

Against this backdrop, the ED alleged that several high-value transactions were credited and debited into and from the applicant's account, which the latter could not explain.

The ED also alleged that the major shareholders in the firm M/s. Vikas Constructions is Ms Afshar Ansari (mother of the applicant) and Mr Atif Raza (maternal uncle-Mamaji), amongst others. However, Ansari could not explain the source of income, especially concerning the transactions made from and into his account.

Appearing for Ansari, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that Ansari was not connected to the firm M/s. Vikas Construction, nor did he have anything directly or indirectly to do with its daily affairs.

It was also submitted that Ansari was completely unaware of the alleged origin of the proceeds of the crime. It was added that certain money credited into Ansari's account from his mother or uncle and utilized for the import of firearms for competitive purposes cannot be treated as proceeds of crime in the hands of the applicant.

However, rejecting all these contentions, the Single Judge said that Ansari's explanation, that whenever he needed funds, he would inform his mother and his maternal uncle and maternal grandfather, and they would arrange for the funds which were received, and the applicant did not know anything beyond that, was not credible especially when Ansari is a sitting MLA and an elected representative of the people

“…considering the fact that the applicant is a member of the Legislative Assembly and a national level sportsman yet not knowing how the funds were being given to him including the quantum of the funds given by his relatives to pursue his own sporting and political pursuits does not inspire confidence,” the Court remarked as it rejected his bail petition.