The Enforcement Directorate, probing a 2017 money laundering case against jailed former AAP minister Satyendar Jain, pointed to Jain's conduct and "influence" in Tihar Jail before the Delhi High Court on Monday to argue that he had received "preferential treatment" in there. The CBI had filed a case in August 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and, a year later, filed a chargesheet against Jain, his wife, and four of his associates in the disproportionate assets case. Following this case, the ED had provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Mangalayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, and JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd. It was the ED's case before the trial court that the companies under investigation were only paper companies that did not earn any income, and that Jain was in control of these companies. Jain, in his arguments before the HC, had said that the ED's case is concerning the check period between February 14, 2015 and May 31, 2017, which is also mentioned in the chargesheet filed in 2018. Jain was arrested by the ED on May 30, 2022. The submission was made before a single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma by ED's counsel advocate Zoheb Hossain, who pointed to "Jain's conduct" in jail. He referred to a chart which contained photographs of the CCTV footage to show that Jain, the "main accused received foot massages from some person". "Ankush is getting Satyendar Jain's cell cleaned" from some person and that the "Jain Superintendent was meeting Jain in his cell," Hossain said. Hossain argued that the special judge had also noted that Jain was getting preferential treatment, including being provided with fruits and vegetables, "which was in violation of Article 14", which is a clear breach. "Special treatment was meted out. for being so influential," Hossain said. Before the trial court, the ED had argued that the CCTV footage of the jail showed “unknown people giving a foot massage” to Jain in the presence of other unknown persons, beyond curfew hours. On the role of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain, the "co-accused" of the former minister, the agency argued that not just public servants but even those who aid and abet a public servant can be held liable for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a schedule offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Section 13(1)(e) states that if a public servant or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, would be held liable for criminal misconduct. "Abetment to Section 13 is engrafted under Section 13(1)(e). Section 13(1)(e) the scheduled offence is equally directed against a non-public servant," Hossain said. He also submitted that even otherwise, the co-accused can be arrayed as respondents if they have dealt with proceeds of crime, by way of use or concealment and would be guilty of money laundering. Hossain argued that Ankush and Vaibhav Jain used the "proceeds of crime to purchase land in the name of Akhinchan Developers" and the "projection of tainted property as untainted property continued even in the Income Declaration Scheme where they showed the whole income as their income to conceal the true nature of proceeds of crime". The trial court in its November 17, 2022 order had rejected Jain’s bail plea observing that it “has prima facie come on record that Jain was actually involved in concealing proceeds of crime by giving cash to Kolkata-based entry operators, and bringing the cash into three companies”. “By this process, the proceeds of crime to the tune of 1/3rd of Rs 4.61 crore has been laundered. Apart from that, Satyendar Kumar Jain has also used the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of Rs 15,00,000 by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators… The applicant/accused had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and, accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata- based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher,” the court said. Jain moved the HC seeking bail against this order.
