The Delhi High Court rejected the bail application Manish Sisodia arrested in Delhi Excise Policy Case on the ground of violation of twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Mohit Mathur and Dayan Krishnan, senior advocates with Vivek Jain, counsel who appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Manish Sisodia has advanced lengthy arguments assailing the order of learned Special Judge and emphasizing that in fact there is no material on record to even have an inference that Applicant Manish Sisodia has committed an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).
It has further been submitted that the case as set up by the ED does not disclose any offence under Section 3 of the PMLA against the Applicant herein. It has been submitted that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA is totally independent in terms of actus reus and mens rea from the Scheduled Offence.
The senior counsels have submitted that at this stage the reliance on the statement under Section 50 PMLA cannot be placed in absence of any material corroboration. It has also been submitted that the allegation of ED that the policy was found in the phones of certain persons of the South Group is also vague and in any case, it does not show any involvement of the Applicant. The senior counsels have submitted that the basic understanding of the ED of the old policy is erroneous.
S.V.Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG)and Zoheb Hossain, special counsel for the ED have submitted that the petitioner Manish Sisodia is one of the key conspirators in formulating, conceptualizing and implementing the various processes and activities in dealing with the proceeds of crime including creating an entire eco-system for generating, concealing, projecting as untainted, possessing and using the proceeds of crime.
It has been submitted that the entire excise policy as finalised was itself a tool to project the proceeds of crime as untainted and that 6% out of 12% which was purportedly shown as wholesaler’s profit was meant to be recoup as the advance kickbacks paid.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, the investigation also revealed that Pernod Ricard by way of conspiracy got EDP (Ex-distillery price) fixed without deducting the discount/rebates they offer and thus got the price fixed at much higher price for their brands and earned huge additional profit which was ineligible to them and should have been passed to the consumers as lower MRP
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that “The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA are in addition to the triple test. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not only been able to pass the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 of PMLA, but he has also not been able to cross the triple test. I consider, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
