There Is Not Even Indirect Evidence Against Satyendar Jain: Singhvi To Supreme Court In Money Laundering Case

On Day 2 of arguments on merits in Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain's bail matter, it was claimed before the Supreme Court today that there was not even any indirect evidence against the leader.

Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and N Hariharan, appearing before the Division Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, contended that the ED has changed the case against Jain from 'shareholding' in the companies (Paryas Infosolution, Akinchan Developers, and Mangalayatan Projects) to 'control' thereof. However, on the basis of evidence today, no case of 'control' by Jain is made out. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the documents on record, including financial statements of the companies.

"Not finding the shareholding good enough, they [ED] jettisoned the ground of shareholding and adopted the ground of control", Singhvi said. 

He urged that CBI had quantified the proceeds of crime ("POC") to be 1.53 crores, but ED claims that the figure stands at 4.61 crores (although both figures are denied). Though ED claims that all companies were beneficially owned and controlled by Jain, there is no evidence today to make out such case and in fact, the established indicia for the control test are not being applied by the agency.

It was added that Jain's role was that of a qualified architect. "[He was] a consultant...persons who want to buy/develop land are the ones who put/take the money...[he was] there for expertise...never supposed to be investor, money handler", Singhvi said.

It was averred that Jain had not been found in possession of any illicit property or money. It was further claimed that the contours of the issue, as laid out in the predicate offence, could not have been broadened by ED to allege an offence under PMLA.

On this, Justice Trivedi disagreed, saying that predicate offence may be under Income Tax Act, but ED may be able to show, following the trail, that a PMLA offence is involved.

Singhvi clarified that what he meant was, "PMLA is a consequential offence...as a result of what is found culpable in predicate offence, there's POC".

Relying on statements of Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain under Section 50 PMLA, it was highlighted that the said individuals had "owned up to the money". "How can the same money be attributed [to me]?", asked Singhvi on behalf of Satyendar Jain.

Additionally, he argued that obtaining of accommodation entries, as alleged, did not ipso facto result in a PMLA offence. At best, it was a tax violation.

On Justice Trivedi enquiring as to whether Jain had filed any application for discharge or quashing in the predicate offence, Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that arguments on discharge were addressed, but the agency moved an application saying it was investigating further.

Medical grounds in connection with Jain were also pressed. The hearing ended with Senior Advocate N Hariharan set to take up rejoinder on the next date, after arguments on behalf of ED are addressed by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.

Counsels for petitioner/Jain: Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and N Hariharan; AOR Vivek Jain; Advocates Abhinav Jain, Amit Bhandari, Rajat Jain. Mohd. Irshad, Siddhant Sahay, and Sharian Mukherjee

Counsels for ED: ASG SV Raju; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Rajat Nair, Annam Venkatesh, Padmesh Mishra, Sairica Raju and Vivek Gurnani

Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 6561/2023