The Bombay High Court has rejected former Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority deputy collector Nitish Thakur’s anticipatory bail plea in a disproportionate assets case saying it is hard to believe that his family amassing wealth of over Rs 100 crore has nothing to do with him being the State Housing Minister’s former personal secretary.
Justice RC Chavan, while rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), observed: “On my part,I find it difficult to believe the story of this enterprising man of how his family gathered wealth of over 100 crores in a just a few years. He even got a fat consultancy from a builder for a redevelopment project.”
The ED had initiated a case against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after a case of cheating was registered against him in 2011 and a case of amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income was filed in March last year.
The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) had found that Thakur owns assets of around Rs118 crore in excess off his declared income. Prior to this, the complaint lodged against him in 2011 for cheating two of his former associates said that he was supposed to pay them a commission of around Rs 15 crore which he never did. The ED is treating the Rs 15 crore as proceeds of the crime and prosecuting Thakur under the PMLA.
Thakur had then approached the highcourt seeking anticipatory bail in the case,saying that he cannot be said to have committed a crime under the PMLA as the alleged offence was not covered in the purview of the act on the date of the transaction.
The court, however, accepted the ED’s arguments based on earlier judgements – that money laundering was a “continuous offence” and what mattered was when the date of which the act “laundering” took place.
However, the court also observed that though ED was treating the commission of Rs 15 crore as proceeds of crime, it was not able to say if it was treating the principal amount as proceeds of crime as well – the money for which he was being prosecuted by the ACB.
Thakur’s advocates have argued that the money earned by Thakur was from a business arrangement between his brother’s company and SD Corporation – a Shapoorji Pallonji group company. He had said that SD Corp was providing consultancy services for a 56 acre redevelopment project in a Mumbai suburb.
“If the applicant was indeed involved in the business and made a profit of Rs131 crores from the management consultancy which he offered to SD Corporation, the prosecuting agencies would find it difficult to prove the charge of money-laundering,” the court observed.
COURTESY:
Sunil.Baghel@timesgroup.com
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=MIRRORNEW&BaseHref=MMIR/2013/04/08&PageLabel=9&EntityId=Ar00900&ViewMode=HTML
Justice RC Chavan, while rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), observed: “On my part,I find it difficult to believe the story of this enterprising man of how his family gathered wealth of over 100 crores in a just a few years. He even got a fat consultancy from a builder for a redevelopment project.”
The ED had initiated a case against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after a case of cheating was registered against him in 2011 and a case of amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income was filed in March last year.
The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) had found that Thakur owns assets of around Rs118 crore in excess off his declared income. Prior to this, the complaint lodged against him in 2011 for cheating two of his former associates said that he was supposed to pay them a commission of around Rs 15 crore which he never did. The ED is treating the Rs 15 crore as proceeds of the crime and prosecuting Thakur under the PMLA.
Thakur had then approached the highcourt seeking anticipatory bail in the case,saying that he cannot be said to have committed a crime under the PMLA as the alleged offence was not covered in the purview of the act on the date of the transaction.
The court, however, accepted the ED’s arguments based on earlier judgements – that money laundering was a “continuous offence” and what mattered was when the date of which the act “laundering” took place.
However, the court also observed that though ED was treating the commission of Rs 15 crore as proceeds of crime, it was not able to say if it was treating the principal amount as proceeds of crime as well – the money for which he was being prosecuted by the ACB.
Thakur’s advocates have argued that the money earned by Thakur was from a business arrangement between his brother’s company and SD Corporation – a Shapoorji Pallonji group company. He had said that SD Corp was providing consultancy services for a 56 acre redevelopment project in a Mumbai suburb.
“If the applicant was indeed involved in the business and made a profit of Rs131 crores from the management consultancy which he offered to SD Corporation, the prosecuting agencies would find it difficult to prove the charge of money-laundering,” the court observed.
COURTESY:
Sunil.Baghel@timesgroup.com
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=MIRRORNEW&BaseHref=MMIR/2013/04/08&PageLabel=9&EntityId=Ar00900&ViewMode=HTML
No comments:
Post a Comment