A Special CBI court on Tuesday remanded Delhi Home Minister Satyendar Jain to Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) custody till June 9, a day after his arrest in a money-laundering case related to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) disproportionate assets FIR against him, registered in 2017.
The ED produced Jain before Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel on Tuesday and sought his custody for 14 days. The agency argued that Mr. Jain had so far been evasive in his replies to them and that there are voluminous evidentiary materials that he needs to be confronted with.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta appeared for the agency on Tuesday and said, “There is a checkered trail of money. We do not know whether his money was being laundered or someone else’s money was being laundered. We need to find out whether this is the only money trail or if there is more. There might be other potential beneficiaries of the money laundering.”
While opposing the agency’s remand application, senior advocate N. Hariharan appeared for Mr. Jain and argued that the offences alleged by the ED pertain to a period “much before” the check period in the CBI’s FIR, based on which the ED initiated its case.
In their remand application, the ED has alleged that accommodation entries were received in four Delhi-based companies allegedly beneficially controlled by Mr. Jain (Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., Paryas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., and JJ Ideal Estate), in exchange for cash totalling ₹4.81 crore. These entries were made from Kolkata-based entry operators through shell companies allegedly beneficially owned and controlled by Mr. Jain.
The agency alleged that these entries were received during the check period between February 2015 and May 2017. It added that these funds were used to then purchase agricultural lands. The ED said that Mr. Jain had signed the conveyance deeds for the purchase of lands by Paryas Infosolutions in 2011 and 2012 and was unable to divulge the source of funds used for these purchases.
Mr. Jain’s lawyers denied the allegations in court on Tuesday and argued that the land deeds being referred to are from a time before the check period. Moreover, they said that Mr. Jain cannot be held responsible for what the four companies were doing, saying that he was merely engaged as an architectural consultant by these firms in exchange for shares in them. “Even today, the share percentage is the same as it was,” Mr. Hariharan argued, adding that Mr. Jain had resigned from his positions in these companies before taking public office.
In its submissions before the court, the ED said that it had recorded the statements of two people who were allegedly controlling the shell companies in Kolkata, through which the accommodation entries were made.
The agency added that one of these people said that they had met with Mr. Jain at a chartered accountant’s office to discuss the details of the accommodation entries. The ED said this was corroborated by the chartered accountant as well. However, Mr. Jain has denied any role in these entries to the agency.
The agency also said they had recorded statements of two people who purportedly disclosed that they were instructed to invest in Mangalayatan Projects and then sell their holdings to a shell company - M/s Trustworthy Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. - on Mr. Jain’s instructions.
When asked why the agency needed 14 days’ custody, S-G Mehta argued that there is voluminous material that Mr. Jain needed to be confronted with. “In PMLA, the offences are committed with a cool head and calculatedly… Unlike IPC offences, this is recurring. Money laundering may still be going on.”
Mr. Jain’s lawyers, however, told the court that other than “bold allegations”, the agency does not have any evidence against Mr. Jain. ”What material you have to pin him down?” Mr. Hariharan went on to argue that Mr. Jain’s house had been searched twice and that in those searches materials were recovered pointing to the role of his co-accused in the alleged hawala transactions. “Because all of this exonerates Mr. Jain, he finds himself here,” he argued.
While granting the ED Mr. Jain’s custody, Special Judge Goel allowed a prayer to allow him to take his medicines, consume only Jain food and install a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine for his sleep apnea. The ED said that they had already taken care of these aspects.
A prayer to allow interrogation in the presence of counsel was denied and so was a prayer to visit a Jain temple once a day.
