Delhi Riots: HC dismisses ex-AAP councillor Hussain’s plea challenging framing of charges in money laundering case

The HC referred to statements of several witnesses, including the driver of Hussain who saw him give money to two persons who were related to the anti-CAA protests/Delhi riots asking them to keep the money as it could be used in anti-CAA protests/gathering people/any kind of nuisance or uproar.

“The statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 as reproduced from the ECIR, all prima facie indicate the alleged complicity of the petitioner (Hussain) with persons to cause an illegal act to be done through illegal means which would fall within the ambit of Section 120A (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 making the offence allegedly committed punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,” the HC held.

The HC noted that criminal conspiracy is a scheduled offence as per the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and falls in Part A of the Schedule.

As per Section 2(u) of PMLA, the “proceeds of crime” include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Hence such a “property” would fall within the ambit of proceeds of crime under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 making a person who has allegedly committed such an offence, guilty of the offence of money laundering, which is punishable in terms of Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.

The HC observed that Hussain’s contention that what he was allegedly involved in, can at the most be considered to be a GST violation punishable under the enactment dealing with GST violation and under the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be accepted.

The HC was of the view that the alleged commission of a conspiracy even for the purpose of GST violation in order to avail cash i.e. money through the process of the criminal conspiracy for use of the said proceeds to commit riots in the Northeastern part of Delhi in February 2020, falls prima facie within the ambit of commission of a scheduled offence under PMLA, 2002.

Rejecting Hussain’s argument that no proceeds of crime/property of his was attached by the ED, the HC held this is not relevant as under the PMLA hatching a criminal conspiracy for violation of tax/ laws for subsequent use of such untainted money for funding riots in the North-Eastern part of Delhi, falls within the domain of commission of a criminal conspiracy which is a standalone scheduled offence under PMLA.

With respect to Hussain’s contention that investigation in the matter was not complete and thus, no charges could be even considered to be framed the HC said that PMLA clearly provides that a complaint will also include any subsequent complaint in respect of which further investigation may be conducted to bring any further evidence against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed whether named in the original complaint or not.

“The petition and the accompanying application are thus, declined,” the HC held.

Hussain had moved the high court challenging a November 5 order of Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, who framed charges against him under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the Act.

The trial court, after perusing the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) complaint, witness statements and accompanying documents, said, “It emerges, prima facie, that accused Tahir Hussain, acting in conspiracy, engaged in money laundering.”

The Delhi Police had filed three FIRs against Tahir pertaining to his involvement in the 2020 riots in northeast Delhi and the money laundering case was registered based on these FIRs.