The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to two Chartered Accountants in a Rs 100 crore cyber fraud and money laundering case, stating custodial interrogation was necessary as they failed to satisfy the 'twin conditions' under the PMLA.
Court's Rationale for Bail Denial
Justice Girish Kathpalia declined to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused, Bhaskar Yadav and Ashok Kumar Sharma, holding that they had failed to satisfy the mandatory "twin conditions" prescribed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court found no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were not guilty of money laundering or that they were unlikely to commit further offences if granted pre-arrest bail.
Details of the Cyber Fraud and Laundering Network
The case stems from a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following investigations initiated on the basis of multiple FIRs registered in various cyber fraud cases, including investment scams and job-related frauds. The enforcement agency alleged that an organised criminal syndicate, with links outside India, defrauded innocent victims and laundered the proceeds through thousands of mule bank accounts before routing the funds abroad and converting them into virtual digital assets.
The High Court noted that investigators had identified thousands of suspicious bank accounts across various Indian banks that were allegedly used to layer the proceeds of crime through debit cards, overseas withdrawals, and digital platforms, indicating a complex, multi-layered laundering network. Rejecting the defence claim that the case involved only lawful digital asset dealings, the court observed that the allegations pointed to a "vast and intricate mesh" of money laundering fraudulently extracted from unsuspecting members of the public.
Alleged Role of the Accused Accountants
The accused were alleged to be part of a Delhi-based group that controlled numerous bank accounts and entities used to channel and conceal tainted funds. The court noted that the analysis showed that dozens of bank accounts linked to a limited number of mobile numbers had collectively routed nearly Rs 100 crore through overseas channels, with more than Rs 65 crore allegedly linked to accounts operated by the applicants. In several instances, the accused were found to be operating across multiple layers of the laundering chain, including directly receiving funds from actors abroad.
Enforcement Directorate's Arguments
Advocates Anurag Jain and Vivek Gurnani, along with Kanishk Maurya and Satyam Prakash, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the bail pleas, arguing that custodial interrogation was crucial. They submitted that the accused had allegedly destroyed electronic evidence, wiped devices, assaulted enforcement officials during searches, and bribed local police to get cyber fraud complaints settled, thereby posing a serious risk to the investigation if granted pre-arrest protection.
Final Ruling and Rejection of Parity Plea
The High Court also rejected the plea for parity with co-accused who had secured regular bail, noting that those cases were factually distinct and did not involve a request for custodial interrogation. Holding that the rigours of Section 45 PMLA were fully attracted, the court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications, clearing the way for the Enforcement Directorate to proceed with custodial interrogation as the investigation continues. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)