Court Emphasizes Custodial Interrogation for Effective Investigation in Complex Financial Frauds
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Bhaskar Yadav and Ashok Kumar Sharma, accused in a high-profile money laundering case involving intricate financial frauds across multiple layers. The judgment, delivered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, highlights the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the complexities of the laundering networks and ensure effective investigation.
The case, rooted in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), revolves around the alleged siphoning off of public funds through elaborate schemes disguised as investment opportunities and part-time jobs. It was revealed that the accused were part of a criminal syndicate, operating through mule bank accounts and fintech platforms, primarily in Dubai, to launder the proceeds of fraud.
The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) had initiated the investigation following complaints of large-scale financial frauds involving transnational money laundering activities. The prosecution detailed a sophisticated modus operandi, where victims were lured through digital platforms to invest in fraudulent schemes. The funds were then layered through multiple accounts before being converted to cryptocurrency and withdrawn overseas.
Justice Kathpalia underscored the gravity of the offenses, noting that economic crimes of this nature pose a serious threat to the financial health of the nation. The court emphasized that economic offenses must be treated differently from conventional crimes, especially in matters of bail.
The judgment reiterated the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which require the court to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court found that the accused failed to satisfy these conditions, particularly given the ongoing investigation and the need for custodial interrogation.
The DoE argued against anticipatory bail, highlighting that granting it could impede the investigation. They cited instances where the accused allegedly destroyed evidence and assaulted investigation officers. The court acknowledged these concerns, stating that custodial interrogation is crucial for recovering further information and ensuring a comprehensive investigation.
This ruling reflects the court's adherence to the legislative intent behind PMLA, which aims to combat money laundering with stringent measures. The judgment is a reminder of the judicial system's role in balancing individual liberty with the broader interests of national economic security.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - Anticipatory bail - Denial of anticipatory bail in cases of money laundering when custodial interrogation is required to unearth complex financial frauds and intricate laundering networks.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 45, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 438, Information Technology Act Section 66C and 66D, Indian Penal Code Section 120B, 403, 420
Bhaskar Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2847118
