Supreme Court Denies Bail To AAP Leader Satyendar Jain In Money Laundering Case, Asks Him To Surrender Forthwith

During the hearing, the court heard a plethora of arguments from both sides. The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, strongly opposed Jain's bail plea. Raju argued that Jain exercised effective control over the companies involved in the alleged money-laundering racket, despite relinquishing his position as a director. He emphasised, “Unaccounted cash of over four crores were received in these companies, through entries. This is not disputed.”

The ED's case rested on the assertion that Jain's family members were used as proxies to control the companies, with co-accused Vaibhav and Ankush Jain acting as mere 'dummies.' The agency contended that the entire amount received by these companies could be traced back to Satyendar Jain. ASG Raju also cautioned the court against overturning the concurrent findings of the trial court and the high court, both of which had previously denied Jain's request for bail.

Furthermore, he raised questions over alleged delay tactics used by Jain to push back the trial in this money laundering case.

What did Satyendar Jain argue?

On the other side, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi vehemently refuted these allegations on behalf of Jain. Singhvi argued that the ED's case was built on shaky grounds, relying on terms like 'mastermind' and 'control' without substantial evidence. He stressed the lack of credible links tying Jain to the alleged money laundering activities. Singhvi also questioned the necessity of Jain's arrest, highlighting the small proportion of shares held by the AAP leader in the implicated companies and his decision to give up his directorship.

The senior counsel stressed that no predicate offence could be established against Jain and questioned the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Among other things, he also insisted that his role was that of a qualified architect, not an investor or money handler, and highlighted the former minister's full cooperation during the investigation.

A limb of Singhvi's arguments focused on the injustice of Jain's prolonged incarceration. He also categorically refuted the claim that the embattled politician had employed tactics to delay his trial.

Jain allegedly had given money to some Kolkata-based entry operators of different shell companies for accommodation entries, through his associates. The entry operators had then allegedly re-routed the money in the form of investment through shares in Jain-linked companies after 'layering them through shell companies'.

The case lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement is based on the CBI complaint and alleges that Jain signed conveyance deeds for the purchase of agricultural lands by Prayas Infosolutions in 2011 and 2012. The central agency has further alleged that the land was later transferred to family members of Jain's associates who denied knowledge about the transfers.

Last year, the ED year attached properties worth Rs. 4.81 crores belonging to five companies and others in the money laundering case against Jain and others. These assets reportedly were in the name of Akinchan Developers, Indo Metal Impex, Paryas Infosolutions, Mangalayatan Projects, and J.J. Ideal Estate etc. The Aam Aadmi Party leader was taken in custody in connection with the money laundering case on May 30, 2022.

In November of last year, the bail application of the former cabinet minister was dismissed by a trial court, which said that it had prima facie come on record that Jain was 'actually involved' in concealing the proceeds of crime by giving cash to the Kolkata-based entry operators and thereafter, bringing the cash into three companies against the sale of shares to show that income of these three companies was untainted.

Subsequently, his bail was denied by the Delhi High Court as well in April, on the ground that he was an influential person and had the potential of tampering with evidence. As such, the twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to not be satisfied. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also denied bail to co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.