Delhi HC mentions another case facts in Chidambaram bail order

facts of ar case have found mention in Delhi High Court order denying bail to former union finance minister P Chidambaram in INX Media money-laundering case. In his 41-p verdict on vember 15, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait of high court reproduced some paragraphs from a 2017 Supreme Court order rejecting bail to Delhi-based lawyer Rohit Tandon in a money-laundering case.

judge also referred to a previous 2017 order of high court in case of Rohit Tandon versus Enforcement Directorate in which it was observed that "re is a provision of trial by a special courts in case of 'schedule offences' under PMLA. Possibility of joint trial would arise under Section 44 of PMLA only when charge-sheet is filed upon completion of investigation and case is committed to Special Court.

RE: Chidambaram slams state of ecomy

"Section 44 does t talk of Joint investigation or joint trial. It makes it mandatory that offence punishable under Section 4 of Act and any scheduled offence connected to offence under that section shall be triable only by Special Court constituted for area in which offence has been committed."

high court, in its vember 15 order dismissing bail plea of Chidambaram, mentioned facts of Tandon's case that "it is alleged that during period from vember 15, 2016 to vember 19, 2016 huge cash to tune of Rs. 31.75 crores was deposited in eight bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank in accounts of 'group of companies'." order says prosecution, in that case, has given details of demand draft issued from  vember 15, 2016 to vember 19, 2016 from eight bank accounts in name of Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Abhilasha Dubey, Man Kumar, Man Saini, Satya Narain Dagdi and Seema Bai on various dates. Most of Demand Drafts issued have since been recovered.

RE: P Chidambaram's judicial custody extended till v 27 by Delhi court

" statements recorded during investigation have evidentiary value under Section 50 PMLA. Prima facie, version given by m is in consonance with prosecution case. prosecution has furr relied upon call data records, CCTV foot. Account Trend Analysis, high court order tes. It ded, " stated activity allegedly indulged into by accused named in commission of predicate offence is replete with mens rea. In that, concealment, possession, acquisition or use of property by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting same by bank drafts, would certainly come within sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. That would come within meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of Act."

RE: Chidambaram denied bail in ED's INX media case by Delhi HC; to remain in Tihar till v 27

Some lawyers, who are aware of facts of Chidambaram's case, on condition of anymity, said certain paragraphs in vember 15 order of high court are similar to those of high court's May 5, 2017 and Supreme Court's vember 2017 orders on Tandon's bail. Tandon, who was arrested in 2016, is an accused in demonetisation-related money laundering case. In INX Media money-laundering case, ED h arrested 74-year-old Chidambaram on October 16. He was arrested by CBI on August 21 in INX Media corruption case and was granted bail by Supreme Court in CBI case on October 22. case was registered by CBI on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Chidambaram's tenure as finance minister. reafter, ED h lodged a money-laundering case in this regard in 2017.

RE: Difference in 2012 & 2019 is 'parlous' ecomy: Chidambaram on RCEP