Person Who Assists With Proceeds Of Crime May Be Prosecuted Under PMLA Though Not Booked For Existing Scheduled Offence: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that individuals implicated in a PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) case, who become involved after the commission of the scheduled offense by aiding in the concealment or utilization of proceeds of crime, are not required to be accused in the scheduled offense.

The court emphasized that these individuals can still face prosecution under PMLA as long as the scheduled offense remains valid.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad observed that, “...an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists.”

The above ruling came in an application filed under Section 438 read with 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of anticipatory bail in an ECIR Case arising out of an FIR registered with the Economic Offence Wing, Delhi under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 473, 476 and 484 of IPC alleging offences committed under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002.

The prosecution claimed that Veerendra Kumar Ram, a Chief Engineer, within the Rural Work Department of Jharkhand orchestrated a scheme involving bribery proceeds. These funds were alleged to have been funnelled through a Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal (present Petitioner), into the accounts of Ram's family members. The petitioner was accused of facilitating this transfer of funds by utilizing accounts belonging to their employees and relatives.

The Court observed that the petitioner was prima-facie involved in concealment and diversification of the property/money of Veerendra Kumar Ram as per the ECIR which had cross-border implication since the money was concealed and diversified in Delhi which was procured by Veerendra Kumar Ram while working as Engineer in Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand.

The Court opined, “This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of anticipatory bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of anticipatory bail.”

“For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, the applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail,” the Court added while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications and dismissing the application.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

Case No.: A.B.A. No. 10671 of 2023

Case Title: Mukesh Mittal vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment