BREAKING| Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik Remanded To ED Custody Till March 3

Maharashtra Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik has been remanded to the custody of Enforcement Directorate till March 3 in a money laundering case.

The Enforcement Directorate had arrested him earlier today for alleged property deals with family members of fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim.  

He was produced before Special Judge Rahul Rokade in the Mumbai Sessions Court today evening. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the ED, sought for 14 days custody.

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Malik, opposed the remand request.

"During the course of investigation, it was revealed that one of such victim of D- Gang is Munira Plumber whose prime property (having present market value is Rs 300 Crore) was usurped by Nawab Malik through M/s Solidus Investments Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by the family members of Nawab Malik and controlled by Nawab Malik, with active connivance of the members of D-Gang including Haseena Parkar. Accordingly, to ascertain the factual position, the statement of the actual owner of the land namely Mrs Munira Plumber was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA She stated that she owns plot admeasuring approx. 3 acres known as Goawala Compound, LBS Marg, Near Phoenix Market," ED's remand copy read.

Case as explained by the ASG

The ASG submitted that on Feb 3, 2022 an FIR was registered against Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar. He is involved in various terror activities and money laundering. He is also involved in unauthorised acquisition of properties by raising funds to create terror. Dawood's sister Haseena Parkar has passed away. She was controlling his acts here. She had acquired lots of properties by raising funds. She acquired a property in Goawala Compound in Kurla. One Munira and her mother Marium are actual owners of this property.

The property was ancestral property. After the demise of the parents, she was the sole owner of the property. Her statement is recorded.  Salim Patel associate of Haseena Parkar was given power of attorney to remove encroachments and not to sell the land.

Munira and her mother had not given any authorisation to sell their rights in the property. Sardar Khan is the brother of the rent collector. She got to know from media reports that the property was sold.

Munira told the ED she has not received any consideration for the property. There is nothing to show a single rupee was paid to the actual owners of the property. Salim Patel sold the property illegally.  This is the manner in which the proceeds of crime have been laundered. He spoke about a deal of Rs. 55 lakhs.  

Hasena Parker later transferred the rights of the property to Nawab Malik for a substantial amount of 55 lakhs.

"I have enough material on record before me to fulfil the condition of  Section 19 under PMLA. The value of the property was 3.3 crores but was purchased for Rs 55 lakhs. And the property was purchased by illegal authorisation through the power of attorney. They want to develop the property now. Salin Patel who had the power of attorney and was under Haseena Parker's control, sold the property to one of the companies owned by the accused", the ASG submitted.

However, the 25-page remand application, while summarising the case states that the total value of the property according to an agreement dated September 15, 2005 was Rs. 30 lakhs. According to another sale deed  the market value was Rs. 3.3 crore but the total payment made by Nawab Malik was Rs. 15 lakh. 

Counter arguments by Desai

Senior Advocate Amit Desai submitted that the transactions relate to 1999, 4 years before the PMLA was enacted. Therefore, the case is hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective application of criminal law.

He submitted that the case was intended to create the a perception that an elected representative of the State of Maharashtra is involved in anti-national activities.

"One of the requirements of PMLA is you need a victim who has suffered. If Munira says she had no idea how it was sold to Mr Malik, then no crime was committed. That is the requirement of the law.  If at all Munira has a grievance against Salim Patel, where is Mr. Malik in all this. Nawab Malik himself is a victim because a person who didn't have the title to the property sold the property to him", Desai submitted.

"Very convenient to give a statement in 2022 and overcome 20 years saying I didn't know. For 15 years you don't get rent, but you don't do anything. Also, why against Mr Malik? He is not a member of the gang.Where is the FIR in relation to the predicate offence?", Desai argued.

He argued that the remand report has casually used words such as "terror funding" to create a negative image in the media against Malik and that the care is politically motivated.

"So the headline will be terror funding tomorrow. Last 25 years this man is in Public Service. I do believe our public knows who they are voting for.You get the evidence and get the material and convict him but don't just make these statement. You came in the morning arrested him and now you say terror funding?", he asked.

The senior counsel submitted that the remand application has no mention of the predicate offence. It was also his case that the guidelines of arrest as laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar case were violated in the case and Section 41A CrPC has been ignored. He also highlighted that no other accused has been arrested in this case.

In response, the ASG submitted that the money laundering offence is continuing one as Malik is in possession of the property. He further submitted that Section 41A CrPC has no application in this case as PMLA is a complete code in itself with overriding effect over CrPC.