If Satyendar Jain hatched a conspiracy in 2010 about the money laundering case, then he should get a Nobel Prize for astrology, said the jailed AAP leader’s counsel while arguing for his bail plea before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: At the Supreme Court, AAP leader Satyendar Jain’s counsel made a striking remark, suggesting that if Jain had indeed orchestrated a money laundering conspiracy in 2010, he would deserve a “Nobel Prize for astrology.” This comment was part of the arguments presented during Jain’s bail plea hearing, which was presided over by a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, argued against the allegations made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He stated,
“ED has alleged that Satyendar Jain hatched a conspiracy in 2010. Then he should get a Nobel prize for astrology or some special prize because in 2010, he knew that in future a party would be formed, he would enter politics, win an election, become a minister, and then amass disproportionate assets. He wishes he were that omniscient, then he would not be suffering like this.”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the state, highlighted Jain’s involvement in the case, focusing on the financial transactions and share dealings. Raju pointed out that shares were issued at a high premium and bought back at a low rate, suggesting financial irregularities.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Bail Plea of AAP Leader Satyendar Jain
Singhvi countered these allegations, emphasizing the prolonged timeline of the case and questioning the basis of the charges. He noted,
“I am incarnated for a year. This case was registered in 2017 and I was arrested after five years. They know they do not have a case on shareholding even in the chargesheet. Their entire basis has been shareholding. Later they added directorship. They have applied the test of control because they know that they can’t make a case based on shareholding.”
Further, Singhvi argued that the probe agency was attempting to transform an income tax case into a money laundering matter. He challenged the ED’s claim of Jain’s control over the funds and shares in question, insisting that this should be argued in trial and not be a basis for continued incarceration.
Addressing the bench, Singhvi also highlighted the statement of JP Mohta, Jain’s chartered accountant, asserting that Mohta never received cash and that the financial transactions ultimately benefited others, not Jain.
Singhvi urged the bench to grant Jain bail, arguing that he was not a flight risk, nor a threat to witnesses, and had already been on medical bail for an extended period.
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Satyendar Jain’s bail plea after hearing the arguments. Jain approached the top court seeking bail in a money laundering case probed by the ED, based on a CBI complaint alleging that he had acquired movable properties between February 2015 and May 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
During the hearing of AAP leader Satyendar Jain’s bail plea in a money laundering case, several key statements were made by the involved parties. Here are the statements from the hearing:
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (representing the state):
- “The entire case was concluded and at fag end you are seeking to implead him? Till trial was over there were no litany of charges.”
- “ED also stepped in, filed complaint and charges have been framed…and he was also arrested by them.”
- “Since no case made out in predicate offence so this does not arise.”
Justice Trivedi:
- “Concurrent final findings, not tentative findings.”
- “Even findings on facts.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi (representing Jain):
- “One straw doesn’t break a camel’s back. It’s the cumulative effect. Your Lordships need to take a holistic view of the case.”
- “The ED’s entire basis has been shareholding. Later they added directorship. But they have applied the test of control because they know that they can’t make a case on the basis of shareholding. On the other hand, it is easy to argue control. Shareholding, directorship, land, possession of money…they cannot make out these cases. These are objective facts, unlike ‘control’. The families of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain are major shareholders. They exercised control. It’s a peculiar case because there are people who owned up and said that the money and shares belonged to them. But ignoring this, the ED says actual control was exercised by Satyendar Jain. That’s why they are saying ‘mastermind’, ‘architect’, ‘control’. These are amorphous terms which if at all, can only be proved in trial. The man certainly cannot be held in jail on the basis of this.”
- “Moreover, he has already been incarcerated for a year and continues to be in jail despite getting bail in the predicate offence. It also must be remembered that the ECIR was lodged in 2017, and he was arrested only after five years.”
- “Then change the predicate offence to a non-disproportionate assets case, or the check period will have to change. If you have chosen to stick with a DA case for a given check period, then this is not permissible.”
- “It is not independent of the anchor offence. It’s a DA case, not a bribe or any other case. In a DA case, you fix the amount, etc. The goalpost cannot vary…How do you then do expenditure minus income…Then it’s not a DA case. This is actually an income tax case which they are trying to convert into a DA case.”
- “The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that Satyendar Jain hatched a conspiracy in 2010. Then he should get a Nobel prize for astrology or some special prize because in 2010, he knew that in future a party would be formed, he would enter politics, win an election, become a minister, and then amass disproportionate assets. He wishes he were that omniscient, then he would not be suffering like this. This agency is supposed to be independent and objective. Sounds like Kafka’s books…Opposite of what they are.”
Senior Advocate N Hariharan:
- Questioned why the ‘threat perception’ that Jain would intimidate witnesses and try to influence trial, which has been cited by the ED as one of the reasons to oppose Jain’s bail plea, did not exist in these five years.
These quotes reflect the arguments and counterarguments presented during the hearing, highlighting the complexities of the case and the legal positions of both sides.
ALSO READ: Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Petitioned for Surrender Extension by 3 Convicts
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against AAP leader Satyendar Jain involves allegations of money laundering and is rooted in a series of financial transactions and property acquisitions that raised suspicions of illegal activities. Here’s a background overview of the case:
Initial Allegations and CBI Involvement: The case originated with allegations that Satyendar Jain, a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and a minister in the Delhi government, was involved in laundering money through various means. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) first registered a case against him, alleging that he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
ED’s Money Laundering Charges: Following the CBI’s findings, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) got involved, focusing on the money laundering aspect of the case. The ED’s investigation was based on the premise that Jain had laundered money through several shell companies. It was alleged that he used these companies to convert black money into white by means of bogus entries, investments in shares at high premiums, and land transactions.
Transactions and Property Acquisitions: The ED’s case hinges on specific transactions and property acquisitions made between 2015 and 2017, which Jain allegedly could not satisfactorily account for. These include investments in companies and real estate transactions that were deemed suspicious.
Arrest and Legal Proceedings: Satyendar Jain was arrested by the ED in connection with this case. His arrest led to a series of legal battles, including applications for bail and challenges to the allegations against him. The case has seen multiple hearings in both the trial court and the High Court, with Jain’s legal team contesting the charges and the basis of his arrest.
Political Implications: Given Jain’s position as a minister and a senior leader in the AAP, the case has significant political implications. It has been a point of contention between the AAP and its political opponents, with the former alleging political vendetta and the latter citing the case as evidence of corruption.
Supreme Court Involvement: The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India, where hearings have been conducted regarding Jain’s bail and the allegations against him. The Supreme Court’s decisions and observations in this case are closely watched, given the high-profile nature of the case and its political overtones.
Current Status: As of the latest updates, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on Jain’s bail plea. The case continues to be a matter of legal scrutiny and public interest, with developments eagerly awaited by both political observers and the general public.
The ED case against Satyendar Jain is a complex legal matter involving allegations of financial impropriety and money laundering, set against the backdrop of Indian politics and the judicial system.
Case Title:
Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
