Thread by @LawBeatInd

#Delhi's Special CBI Court, Rouse Avenue will today continue hearing @AamAadmiParty Minister #SatyendraJain bail plea in Money Laundering Case.
Adv Sushil Kumar Gupta for co-accused #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain will make counter-arguments before Spl Judge Vikas Dhull today.

Yesterday, ASG SV Raju for ED (@dir_ed) concluded his arguments. During the hearing, he referred to CCTV footage submitted by agency last week on “VIP treatment", Raju stated, “Kindly look at the conduct of Jain in jail, he is clearly abusing power sitting in the jail."

The court has assembled. Adv Sushil Gupta begins making his counter arguments on behalf of #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain. He states that the "accomodation enteries" have been associated to us as "proceeds of crime" & therefore, PMLA has been attached to us.

Gupta argues that first we have to see whether there is 'Proceeds of crime' or not, and i am able to convience the court that it is not there then the case falls. He refers to Vijaymadan Lal Choudhary case of Apex Court.

Gupta reads from the Vijay Madanlal judgment that "proceeds of crime is to be strictly construed...the property must be derived & attached". He states that clear nexus is to be there, otherwise there is no proceeds of crime.

Gupta argues that ASG Raju had in his arguments mentioned provisions of IPC (criminal conspiracy, Frogery etc),on which case is not even registered. He argues that the "scheduled offences" needs to take place.He argues that ED is rewriting whole definition of 'proceeds of crime'.

Gupta reads relevant portions from Vijay MadanLal Judgment and argues that what exactly is the proceeds of crime in the case, it could only be the disappropriate assets (which is the scheduled offence), the @dir_ed is silent on it.

He argues "It is only on their whims and fancies they are after us". He argues that before amounting to money laundering there has to be scheduled offence..Where is it?

Gupta argues that in the present case, there is "No proceeds of crime" and without it being there can be no offence under PMLA. He argues that it is contrary to the judgment given by the Supreme Court. He adds that the ED is "not authorised" to investigate in the present case.

Once the accomodation entry has got no connection with the 'proceeds of crime' then no case is made out & it is no where connected with #SatyendarJain being a public servant, Gupta argues.

Gupta argues that they(@dir_ed) just want to harrass (#satyendrajain), only because he is a 'Political Figure'. He also argues that "Accomodation Entries" is NOT proceeds of crime.

He argues can the ED (@dir_ed ) investigate into the "scheduled offence"...the Answer is a BIG NO. Gupta argues that the conversion of "BLACK MONEY" to "WHITE" is not money laundering.

Gupta contends that "cognizance is always taken of an offence and not of an offender". On the aspect of S.45 PMLA, he argues that to make out the exigencies, the case has to be made out thoroughly.

Gupta argues that in the present case, there is "No Proceeds of Crime" and they have not proved any "Scheduled Offence".
Further, on the aspect of "cash" being transferred by #satyendrajain, Gupta mentions statement of JP Mohta.

Gupta states that JP Mohta met #SatyendarJain twice when he was a Minister, and adds that it was courtesy meeting only & not a meeting for discussing "Accomodation Entries".

He argues that JP MOHTA - "The Star Witness" of ED, has clearly stated in his statements that he doesn't know about the accomodation entries, & when he says this how can the money be linked to #satyendrajain or anybody else.

Gupta argues, "Can they (@dir_ed) adopt the pick & choose policy, why have they not arrested this person?" They have not made him an accused in the complaint.

Gupta states that Mohta has contradicted his own statements. He argues that the @dir_ed has relied completely on JP Mohta's statements, and on that basis ASG Raju was invoking sections of frogery under IPC, "how can they rely on Mohta's statements?"

On the aspect of back-dating of documents, and allegations of cheating,and false evidence, Gupta argues that it is the auditor who filed the docs to the ROC.

"If ED thinks there is back-dating they should investigate the auditor, despite that how can they rely on his statements? How is he credible?" Gupta argues.

He argues it is a "BIASED INVESTIGATION" & it can be seen through the questions asked by the @dir_ed to the witnesses, he alleges that the agency "was putting words in the mouth of the witnesses" by everytime Linking all the companies to #satyendrajain.

Gupta argues that @dir_ed didn't even ask then whose company it was, they simply referred to it as #satyendrajain's company. He contents the company is mine (AnkushJain and VaibhavJain) but it is being referred to Satyendra Jain everytime.

Gupta reads statements of two witnesses, wherein they clearly stated that they donot know #satyendrajain and argues that how can these persons tell how & who transferred cash? When they don't even know Jain.

Gupta argues that all the persons who are actually part of the money laundering (as per @dir_ed), the agency has made all of them witnesses & also are blindly believing on them. "How is this fair?", he argues.

He argues that the questions asked by @dir_ed to the witnesses are wrong, when they mentioned everything as #SatyendarJain's company, to this the witnesses will obviously reply as they do not know anything.

Gupta contends that the evidence & records clearly state that everything is #VaibhavJain & #AnkushJain's.He further argues that,"who knows these statements were made under pressure & cohesion,this will be clear only when trial begins". So,statements cannot be completely relied on

Gupta reads relevant portions of statements of witnesses and also mentions the details of the business carried out by #VaibhavJain's companies.

Coming to the aspect of Intrusion Detection System (IDS), Gupta argues that it has been done by #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain in their "individual capacity". He further argues what is it to do with the other shareholders?

Gupta argues that as the IDS was filed by me in my individual capacity, whether i was a Director of the company or not is not an issue & #SatyendarJain has nothing to do with it.

Gupta argues that #SatyendarJain did not have control over my( Ankush jain & vaibhav jain's) company. He also contends that a person who cannot but shares of his own company, how can he(#satyendrajain) be held as the "Controller" of my companies.

In light of the twin conditions given under the S.45 PMLA, Gupta concludes by saying that kindly grant #AnkushJain & #VaibhavJain bail.

The court is adjourned, will hear Sr.Adv. N. Hariharan's counter-arguments appearing for #satyendrajain tomorrow at 2:30pm.