The Allahabad High Court rejected bail on the lack of satisfaction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering, 2002 ( PMLA ) in the matter relating to Rupees 7.68 crores fraud against home buyers and investors.
The applicant has filed the bail application in terms whereof proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) has been triggered into motion. The said ECIR has been lodged in context with numerous FIR relating to the predicate offence against M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Shine City) and its Director/Officers by various home-buyers/investors and prospective purchasers who had deposited money and invested with the said company and its directors, office bearers and it was neither returned nor the property/promised allotted land was given to them.
It was primarily stated that a company under the name and style of M/s Shine City is the prime accused alongwith its director in the predicate offence namely Rashid Naseem, Asif Naseem, Mohd. Jaseem Khan, Javed Iqbal and other persons who are alleged to have cheated innocent citizens by alluring them to invest in the M/s Shine City in terms of various lucurative schemes and all such persons have been duped and defrauded by the M/s Shine City and its directors and persons in control of the company.
It was further alleged that the applicant could not explain the transactions and movement of funds especially as it was shown that about rupees 7.68 crores had been received in the accounts of his above mentioned firms over a period of five years and majority of the large transaction of such money has been received primarily from one source i.e. from M/s Shine City.
The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is neither named nor he has any role in so far as the numerous FIRs lodged against M/s Shine City and its director and office bearers is concerned. Thus, the applicant is not named nor charged with any offence in the FIRs lodged relating to the predicate offence hence, he has been wrongly and falsely implication in the ECIR.
The applicant further indicated that apart from the business income he earned rupees ten lakh a year from agriculture. He also earned rupees one crore per year from dealing with property, rupees thirty lakh per year earned from consultancy relating to documentation for real estate deals and rupees 3.5 crores was received as commission.
A Single Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that “It may be right to say that the amount in the accounts of the applicant and his firm was derived from the business transaction and the business relations of the applicant and his firms with M/s Shine City but despite taking the same at its face value, yet there is no explanation as to how the applicant was engaged to enter into deal with the farmers to procure land for and on behalf of the company M/s Shine City. From the perusal of the letter of engagement, apparently does not bare any date nor it refers to any resolution by the Board of Directors approving the engagement of the applicant and conferring powers on the applicant to negotiate on behalf of the company M/s Shine City.”
“It is in the aforesaid backdrop and considering the material available on record including the statements which were given by the applicant and the manner in which the applicant has explained the movement of the funds and how it has come into the account of the applicant, there is prima facie material against the applicant to link him with the movement and trail of funds from M/s Shine City into the various accounts of the applicant and his closely held business firm” the Court noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
