No Clear Proof Illegal Money: Delhi HC Grants Bail in ₹696 Cr PMLA Case with Alleged Shell Firms and Fake Tax Certificates [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail in a ₹696 crore case under the Prevention ofMoney Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), noticing that there was no clear proof that directly connected the accused to the alleged proceeds of crime.

The bail application was filed by the petitioner, Amit Agrawal, challenging the order passed by the session court, which had dismissed the applicant's plea for release. The case arises from FIR No. 45/2022 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, alleging fraudulent outward remittances of approximately ₹696.69 crore to overseas entities in Singapore and Hong Kong through forged Form 15CA/CB certificates.

The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, that no evidence was traceable to the alleged offence found in his accounts and transactions between his wife and mother were explained as personal loans or commission income. It is supported by bank statements, tax returns, and TDS certificates.

It was also argued that the the entire case of the Enforcement Directorate rests solely on statements of co-accused persons, which are exculpatory, contradictory, and recorded while they were in ED custody, and no forged Form 15CA/CB or bank account operated by him was produced, and he contended that custodial interrogation was complete, and the ED had filed its third supplementary complaint, concluding the investigation against him.

Petitioner also relied on precedents such as Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024), Vijay Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) to argue that bail should not be denied solely on co‑accused statements or gravity of offence.

On the other hand, the respondent ED opposed the bail and argued that the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA; was the mastermind of the laundering operation, and that the applicant fails the triple test of bail - flight risk, possibility of influencing witnesses, and tampering with evidence. It was also stated that the statement recorded under section 50 of PMLA shows the petitioner's role as “kingpin” in laundering proceeds of crime.

After hearing both sides the high court held that the prosecution had primarily relied upon statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA to attribute the role of a “kingpin” to the applicant, with no valid independent documentary evidence directly linking the applicant to the alleged remittance.

The court noted that the transaction involving his wife and others also explained prima facie and that prolonged incarceration without trial amounted to pre‑trial punishment. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI ( 2012) and Arvind Dham v. ED, the Court concluded that liberty must prevail when the investigation is complete,e and the trial is remote.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates