A Delhi court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its flawed investigation into a money laundering case.The court ordered Assistant Director Pankaj Kumar, who served as the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case, to explain why penal and disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.
NEW DELHI: Last week (on March 30th): The Delhi Rouse Avenue Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its flawed investigation in a money laundering case. The court ordered Assistant Director Pankaj Kumar, who served as the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case, to explain why penal and disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal & ED Summons | “Show Evidence Against CM”: Delhi High Court to ED
Special Judge Mohd Farrukh noted that Kumar failed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation. The court highlighted that, despite having incriminating evidence against two individuals, they were not named as accused in the case.
Special Public Prosecutor Naveen Kumar Matta represented the Enforcement Directorate, while advocates Deepak Bhadana, Qamar Ali, and RP Shukla represented the accused individuals.
The court further remarked that Kumar’s failure to probe the bank accounts to which the accused had transferred the proceeds of their illegal activities, as well as his failure to examine the account holders, indicated an intentional attempt to misdirect the investigation and withhold crucial evidence that could have implicated them.
The court stated,
“These proceedings not only reveal a glaring case of faulty investigation but also suggest an investigation colored by motivation or an attempt to ensure that certain individuals escape punishment.”
The court made these observations while delivering its judgment on the ED’s complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Mukesh Jain, Shiv Kumar Bhargava, Benu Jain, Nipun Bansal, and the late Mohd Nauman, who died during the trial.
Background
The matter followed a complaint filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that between October 2008 and March 2009, the five accused, along with others, conspired to forge and fabricate eight checks. Three of these checks were encashed at a branch of Punjab National Bank in Lucknow.
Judge Farrukh observed that there could be no money laundering offense against accused Shiv Kumar Bhargava and Benu Jain since they were acquitted of the predicate offence. The court examined the merits of the case against them and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations. Consequently, they were acquitted in the PMLA case as well.
However, the court found sufficient evidence to convict Mukesh Jain and Nipun Bansal. The court also reviewed the flaws in the investigation against them.
The court noted that out of the credited amount of Rs 1.67 crore, Mukesh Jain had transferred Rs 60.6 lakh to the bank account of M/s Analytical Impex Private Limited (AIPL), whose director was Pramod Kumar Pandey.
From the AIPL account, Rs 10 lakh was transferred to the bank account of M/s Saint Grandeur (SG), and Rs 50 lakh was withdrawn in cash.
“Thus, an amount of Rs 61,000 out of the total of Rs 60,61,000 was still present in the bank account of M/s. AIPL at the time of recording of ECIR,” the court order noted.
The court observed that the AIPL bank account was used for laundering the proceeds of crime, and Pramod Kumar Pandey assisted Mukesh Jain in this activity. The court further noted that the SG account, operated by Adhiraj Kumar, was also used for money laundering.
“There was sufficient material before the IO to indicate that both individuals assisted Mukesh Jain in laundering the proceeds of crime,” the judge said, adding that there was nothing preventing the ED from taking action against them.
READ ALSO: MSCB Scam Case: ED Allowed to Intervene in Closure Plea
Based on the available evidence, the court summoned Pandey and Adhiraj Kumar to face trial under the provisions of the PMLA for their alleged assistance in Mukesh Jain’s money laundering activities.
Similarly, the court highlighted the lack of investigation into the money transfers from the bank accounts operated by the accused, Nipun Bansal. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence against the account holders to issue any directions.
The court found that the IO had committed acts of omission and commission that resulted in a defective investigation. Consequently, the court issued a notice to the IO to present a cause as to why disciplinary and penal action should not be recommended against him.
READ ALSO: ED Accuses Delhi Excise Scam Suspects of Delaying Trial
The court also expressed concern over the decade-long duration it took to complete the probe in the money laundering case and criticized the officers involved for not supervising the investigation effectively.
Case Title: ED vs. Mukesh Jain
