The Delhi High Court in the case of Parvez Ahmed Versus ED has held that collection of funds in an illegal way to commit scheduled offence in future does not amount to money laundering.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the funds collected are not proceeds of crime and can be proceeds of crime only when they were generated as a result of scheduled offence. The case set up by the ED is putting the cart before the horse.
The petitioners sought the regular bail for the commission of offence under sections 3 and 4 read with section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The petitioners were also members of the political front of PFI – Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and were actively involved in SDPI’s activities. SDPI gave ticket to Mohd Ilyas for contesting Delhi Assembly elections, 2020 from Karawal Nagar and for this purpose, Rs. 2.5 lakhs was given by SDPI to Mohd Ilyas.
During the investigation, it was revealed that more than Rs. 60 Crores have been deposited in the bank accounts of PFI since 2009 and an amount of Rs. 32.03 Crores was deposited in cash. Several booklets in respect of cash donations for the period March 2020 were recovered and seized from the national headquarter office of PFI.
Scrutiny of the booklets reveals that complete details of a large number of donors were not mentioned and hence it was not possible to identify them and also the genuineness of the so-called donations. In a large part of the cases, the identity of the so-called donor and the authenticity of the purported cash donations could not be established. It therefore, appeared that complete details of the so-called donors were deliberately concealed as they did not exist in reality.
It is also stated in the Complaint that all the petitioners were actively involved and instrumental in the fund raising activities of PFI as part of the larger criminal conspiracy to raise and use such funds in PFI’s various unlawful activities in India.
PFI conducted anti-CAA protests across India and the petitioners actively participated in such protests. Further, all the petitioners were an integral part of this conspiracy and they played a key role in creating and managing the facade of bogus cash donations by way of which proceeds of crime were concealed, possessed and projected as untainted money.
The petitioners were the key persons who were responsible for raising and collecting funds and depositing the same at the National office of PFI at Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi.
The Complaint in conclusion stated that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by the office bearers of PFI by which suspicious funds from within the country and abroad have been raised by the PFI.
These funds have been raised as a part of the scheduled offence of criminal conspiracy. The funds so raised and collected by PFI are thus nothing but proceeds of crime which they have layered, placed and integrated through their numerous bank accounts as well as those of their members/sympathizers.
Investigation has revealed that such fund collection exercise was a sham and was falsely projected to be received from PFI sympathizers and was further revealed that these transactions were bogus.
Hence, cash from suspicious sources was nothing but proceeds of crime generated out of criminal conspiracy to disturb communal harmony, incite violence through riots and other unlawful activities for spreading terror across India.
Thus, by concealing, possessing and acquiring proceeds of crime raised in India and abroad as part of criminal conspiracy and by thereafter projecting such funds as untainted money, the petitioners have been directly involved been knowingly a party to the various processes and activities connected with the proceeds of crime and thus committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA.
The court while granting the bail held that the petitioners have undergone a substantial period of incarceration i.e. more than 2 years 2 months and there is no likelihood that the trial will be concluded in the near future.
Case Details
Case Title: Parvez Ahmed Versus ED
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1859/2024
Date: 04.12.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Adit S. Pujari
Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain
