The Supreme Court, while rejecting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader’s bail plea, said he was an influential person and could tamper with evidence.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied bail to jailed former AAP minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court, while rejecting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader’s bail plea, said he was an influential person and could tamper with evidence. The apex court also said there was nothing illegal or invalid in the court order last year denying bail to the AAP leader.
Satyendar Jain, who was arrested on May 30 last year, is accused of money laundering through four companies allegedly linked to him. He approached the High Court after the trial court rejected the bail application in November last year.
“The present court cannot enter into the validity of these proceedings. The facts show that certain disproportionate assets have been masked. The court has to see a prima facie case. Broad probabilities indicate that the companies associated with him are controlled and directed by him (Satyendar Jain),” it said.
A detailed order is pending.
Satyendar Jain had earlier said that he was cooperating with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the investigation. The former Delhi minister also said that the trial court judge and the ED had seriously misread and misapplied the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) by identifying the proceeds of crime only on the basis of accommodation data. He said in his plea to the high court that the entries into the accommodation cannot by themselves lead to an offense under the PMLA.
The enforcement agency alleged that the companies, which were “beneficially owned and controlled” by Satyendar Jain, who was a minister at the time of the alleged offence, laundered ₹4.81 crore from shell companies to Kolkata-based entry operators through the hawala route. .
The agency claimed that there was enough evidence to show that Satyendar Jain was “at the center of things”. “Money laundering is crystal clear. Their case is that Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with it. I have to prove that Satyendar Jain was at the center of these things,” the agency’s counsel argued before the high court.