Delhi court frames charges against ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in money laundering case

“Tahir Hussain, in a conspiracy to fraudulently withdraw money from accounts of certain companies owned or controlled by him through bogus and malafide transactions… with him being the beneficiary and with intent putting it to use towards riots, then accused Tahir Hussain would be set to be deriving or obtaining property as a result of criminal activity associated with/relatable to scheduled offence as the proceeds of crime and will be guilty of money laundering,” the order read.

The ED had alleged that Tahir hatched a conspiracy with his associates to fraudulently withdraw money from accounts of certain companies owned and controlled by him through bogus and malafide transactions and this money was then put to use during the riots.

Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta, who appeared for the ED, claimed that under Tahir’s instructions, “funds were transferred from companies owned/ controlled by him to accounts of fictitious/bogus entities created by entry operators”.

“He was the ultimate beneficiary of the money received in cash which was used for fulfilment of his ulterior motives… The conspiracy hatched by Tahir Hussain with his associates to fund and organise anti-CAA protests and the Northeast Delhi riots was the result of his conspiracy to fraudulently withdraw money through bogus and malafide transactions,” he argued.

Tahir’s lawyer Naveen Malhotra argued that “the accused has a genuine business and in fact, even, he had taken bank loan. Moreover, as per the best case of prosecution, accused has committed a GST violation and GST is not a scheduled offence for the purpose of PMLA”.

The defence counsel had also argued that “transactions during that period cannot be termed as proceeds of crime as it was a regular activity”.

The court agreed with this argument stating, “Prior transactions before December 2019 would not be relevant as even the tainted money so generated would not be proceeds of crime for the purpose of PMLA. To this extent, the assertion of the counsel for the accused is correct.”