Thread by @LawBeatInd

#Delhi's Special CBI Court, Rouse Avenue will today continue hearing @AamAadmiParty Minister #SatyendraJain bail plea in #moneylaunderingcase.
Yesterday, Adv. Sushil Gupta for Ankush Jain &Vaibhav Jain began making his arguments before Spl. Judge Vikas Dhull.
#PMLA #Bail #plea

During the Hearing, Yesterday, SPP N. K. Matta, filed an additional affidavit on behalf of #ED showing conduct of the three accused namely, #Satyendra Jain, Ankush Jain, and Vaibhav Jain the Jail.

SPP Matta alleged that 3 accused are hampering investigation &that Ankush and Vaibhav are helping Jain. He also contended that Jain is controlling everything from inside.

Read more:
lawbeat.in/news-updates/p…

The court has assembled, Adv. Sushil Gupta continues making his submissions on behalf of #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain.

Gupta mentions the duration of directorship in the companies, Paryas Infosolution Pvt Ltd, Indo Metalimpex Pvt Ltd, M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd and Mangalayatan Projects Pvt Ltd.

He also mentions the shareholding patterns of the companies Paryas Infosolution Pvt Ltd, Indo Metalimpex Pvt Ltd, M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd and Mangalayatan Projects Pvt Ltd.

Gupta states that the majority stakeholders after the cheque period was with Ajit Prasad Jain & Sunil Kumar Jain, and that it cannot be said that #SatyendraJain had effective control over the shareholdings.

He further states that 2015-16 is the relevant period and all the balance sheets filed & signed are in the name of #VaibhavJain & #AnkushJain. He states that controller is the one who signs the balance sheet and so #satyendrajain is not the controller.

Gupta states that ater 2013 there is not a single sign on any paper by #satyendrakumarjain (SKJ), all are signed by #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain, that SKJ had resigned on 31st July 2013.

He further states that on searches that took place at their homes, all the cheque books and passbooks found were in Ankush & Vaibhav Jain's name, none contained SKJ name, and so #satyendrajain cannot be the "Controller".

Gupta contends that there has been no transactions taken place in name of SKJ or signed by him, and that he has not signed even a single cheque. He now mentions the "accomodation enteries", around which the whole case revolves.

Gupta now mentions, the statements of JP Mohta the Chartered accountant (CA) the "star witness", wherein he states that he contacted #satyendrajain 2-3 times.

He argues that "Accomodation Entry" is not a part of the scheduled offence, and is "Absurdity". Why haven't they included CA JP Mohta? Because accomodation Entry is not "proceeds of crime". He argues that this does not amt to #moneylaundering case.

Gupta argues they have targeted #satyendrajain just because he is a Minister.
He now mentions the statement of one Rajendra Prasad wherein he states that he never contacted SKJ, and was in touch only with CA JP Mohta.

Gupta mentions statement of Jivendra Mishra from one of the Calcutta based companies, wherein he states that he talked to SKJ in 2010 through one Rajendra Bansal and Bansal provided me with the Number of Hawala operators.

Gupta mentions Ashish Chaukhani's statement wherein he stated that he does not know #satyendrajain. He further mentions various other statements of witnesses.

Gupta argues that all the statements collaborate with the documents that have been mentioned, and states that not a single cheque has been found signed by #satyendrajain.

Reading statements of #satyendrajain Gupta "before contesting for Delhi election on July 21, 2013, I was asked to choose between Business & Politics, and I choose to be public servant following politics".

Gupta states that being a controller of the company one cannot transfer shares on the face value, and also added that SKJ was therefore not the Controller of the companies as he transferred shares.

Gupta contends that the entire circumstances & statements of witnesses categorically shows that #satyendrajain did not have "Effective Control" over the companies.

Gupta argues that all facts & circumstances shout that it is all linked to Ankush & Vaibhav Jain, but they (@dir_ed) have created a bias against #satyendrajain, that he has done everything and is controlling it.

Reading statements, He argues that there is no rational in comparing the "disclosed" and "undisclosed income" in Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and is Absurdity on the face of it.

Gupta reads portions of statement of CA Mohta, when #VaibhavJain was in #ED custody.
The Court adjourned the matter, will hear post-lunch.

Court has assembled, Gupta begins making submissions, he reads relevant portions of #AnkushJain statements asked by #ED regarding the Calcutta based Companies and its operations.

On the aspect of "Financial Control", Gupta submits that statement of Sanjay Aggarwal (initial investor at Akinchan Developers). He states that the price money was monitored by the Sunil Jain & Vaibhav Jain family, and #Satyenderjain was not a controller.

Gupta continues to read statements of witnesses on the 'Details of Investment' purchase by #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain. He states that the premium on money was decided by them & properties were purchased in their names and Satyendra Jain did not gained or derived anything of it.

On the aspect of 'Income Declaration Scheme (IDS)' Gupta states that subject to the provision of the scheme, all the undisclosed income can be disclosed, & 45% of tax is to be paid on it. He mentions S.2(a) as Declaration has been made by Individual.

He mentions S.190 and takes the court through the provisions made against him in the present case. Gupta further mentions the IDS Form 1, mentioning the amt of tax paid. He states that all the Calcutta Company shares were transferred back to us as per the provision.

Gupta mentions an IDS of Sept 2016, which was rejected on grounds of misrepresentation and use of multiple names.
He further mentions that the #DelhiHighCourt has quashed all proceedings against #SatyendraJain in Benami Transactions Act.
Read more: lawbeat.in/news-updates/d…

Gupta contends that after the quashing of Benami Transactions Act proceedings by #DelhiHighCourt, the misrepresentation part is removed from the IDS rejection & that only the use of multiple names is left.

On the aspect of 'back-dating of documents', Gupta mentions CA JP Mohta's statements..."Mr.Prasad called me & asked for the no. of Hawala Transactions for #ankushjain #vaibhavjain & #satyendrajain".

He states allegations of ED is that IDS was done as an Individual capacity &companies had nothing to do with 'Accomodation Shares'.

It is further argued that Balance sheets that have been filed is signed by JP Mohta, Ankush & Vaibhav Jain (showing them Directors) much prior to filing of IDS.

He argues the the back-dating part is totally false, as they (#ED) have made #satyendrajain Directors, much prior to the filing of the IDRs.

The Court is adjourned for today, and will continue hearing submissions of Adv. Sushil Gupta tomorrow from 10:30am.