A CBI court has remanded Delhi cabinet minister Satyendar Jain in Enforcement Directorate custody until June 9 in connection with a money laundering case. On Monday, the ED had arrested Jain in connection with the case, which is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation FIR lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Jain is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him. On Tuesday, Jain was produced before Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel, who remanded him in ED custody after the agency submitted that it was needed to confront him with voluminous material and ascertain the potential beneficiaries of the money laundering. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the ED, initially sought 14 days’ custody of Jain. Mehta told the court that the agency had called Jain and did not arrest him straight away, but he remained evasive in his replies when they tried to investigate the matter. Mehta, while going through the allegations against him, submitted that companies “beneficially owned and controlled by Jain” received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route. "There is a chequered trail of money. We don't know whether the money belonged to him, was he laundering someone else's money, whether this is the only trail or there is something more. Who are other potential beneficiaries of this money laundering? Evidence disclosed so far has not stopped at these few crores. Tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out," Mehta told the court. The ED, in its remand application, alleged that Jain, while posted as a minister, acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and that of his family members, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The ED alleged that Jain was "managing and controlling" five shell companies which were "not doing any substantial business before or during the year 2016-17”. When the court asked why custody of 14 days was required, Mehta said the "intricate nature of the money trail and the voluminous data" has to be considered. "Many of the IPC offences can be committed in the heat of the moment. Money laundering is a calculated offence. Persons will erase the money trail. He will have to be confronted with the material and find out where the money came from and where the money is going. This is an offence of a recurring nature which he may be able to throw light on during custodial interrogation," the SG told the court. Senior advocate N Hariharan, who appeared for Jain, opposed the ED remand stating that the "grounds of arrest is nothing but reproduction of the chargesheet in the CBI case. Not an inch has moved. Five-six occasions they summoned him, he cooperated”. Hariharan told the court that even in the CBI case, the agency "has not been able to point out any source of income", and added that Jain's home was searched on two occasions and his bank accounts were seized. He told the court that he was an architect who was given a share in these companies as a consultant. "I (Jain) was an architect. What the company does is none of my business. The land is in the name of those companies. I resigned from the companies on assuming office," he added. Mehta countered: "It is interesting to know that it is profitable to be a non-practising architect and the consultancy fee is a huge share. No building has been constructed so far. Companies are, as per evidence, controlled by him." The case is based on a CBI FIR lodged against Jain in 2017 under which he was accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him. The CBI complaint had said that Jain could not explain the source of funds received by four companies in which he was a shareholder. It had registered a case against him, his wife and four others on charges of corruption. The ED has alleged that during its investigation, it found that two Kolkata=based residents, Rajender Bansal and Jivender Mishra, were in the business of providing accommodation entries through shell companies to various beneficiaries at a commission. The ED stated that Rajender, in his statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, started that met with J P Mohta, Jain’s chartered accountant, on December 4, 2017. The ED alleged that Rajender provided accommodation entries in Jain's companies. The ED further alleged that Jain paid for these accommodation entries through cash. The agency claimed that cash was transferred from Delhi to Kolkata through hawala operators. It claimed that these "accommodation entries were layered and received by Kolkata-based shell companies into companies owned by Jain and agricultural lands were purchased with these funds”.
