When Special Judge Geetanjali Goel first tried the case in his 40 days, the court asked the Central Investigative Commission some tough questions to get clarification on the criminal nature of the case.
Thursday, a court in Delhi denied the release of AAP leader Satiender He Jain in connection with a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Department (ED). His Special Judge Vikas Dhull of Rouse Avenue Court denied his Jain bail in a highly twisted case.
Special Judge Geetanjali Goel held the first hearing over a period of
40 days after the court asked the Central Investigative Commission some tough questions to get an explanation for the crimes in the case.
Towards the end of the bail debate, the ED dismissed the trial out of court, arguing that the judge had failed to consider the agency’s claim that Jain, as Minister of Prisons and Hospitals, could falsify health reports. tried to move to After unsuccessful attempts to challenge the transfer of the
case to the Delhi High Court, Jain’s attorneys decided to withdraw the application to the High Court.
After his case was transferred to Special Judge Dal, the ED filed an affidavit alleging that Jae-in abused power in prison when a stranger offered him freshly cut fruit and a massage. did. Meanwhile, Jain’s attorneys defended the agency’s claims, arguing that it was designed to influence the judge’s opinion. Even outside the court, Jain’s heat didn’t go away as his suspected fraudster Sukesh Chandrasekhar destroyed a series of letters claiming that AAP leaders had asked him for protection money. Chandrasekhar also alleged that Jain abused his power in prison. The allegations were denied by the AAP, and the ruling party called the allegations ludicrous.
ED’s main allegations were that Jain had de facto control over the companies under investigation and that his wife, Poonam Jain, had taken control of him after his resignation. , voicing the fact that he was no stranger to demonstrating that he had de facto control over the companies under investigation. Have. Deputy Attorney General SV Raju, who appeared on behalf of the ED, dismissed his bail alleging that Jain was a key figure involved not only in “converting black money into white money” but also in manipulating the evidence. I objected to the charge. Raju told the court that the companies under investigation were “only paper companies that do not generate revenue and have no intrinsic value.”
Jain’s lead attorney, N Hariharan, argued that the ED was, at best, suing for income tax violations that were not planned violations. Hariharan also argued that the ED was taking a fictitious basis in its lawsuit, reiterating that this was illegal and that control of the company under investigation would never rest with Jain, a minority shareholder.
Defense attorneys also argued that Poonam’s name, which appeared as a member of the trust, was a case of false identity in the ED’s investigation, in which a woman of the same name was an actual member, and that the agency was not. claimed. Once addressed, perform address verification. CBI filed a lawsuit under the Anti-Corruption Act in August 2017 and a year later in a disproportionate wealth lawsuit he filed charges against Jain, his wife and four associates .
According to the case, ED has provisionally placed his assets of Rs.4.81 Crore It was attached.
ED stated that Jain “substantially owned and controlled” the above companies while he was a civil servant from 2015 to 2016, and that he “had Rs.4.81 Crore from paper companies in exchange for cash.” I have received a lodging record for rupees.” Kolkata-based entry operator Hawala Route.