The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to grant the bail to the person involved in international drug trafficking using crypto currency and money laundering.
The bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani has observed that the money was transferred accordingly in the India accounts. It is also true that under Section 60 (2) of the Act, such accounts have not been freezed. What is it’s effect? How are these accounts directly connected with the applicant? Whether the presumption under Section 23 may be extended to conclude that money which has been transferred from outside India into the Indian accounts by the applicant are proceeds of crime? These all questions would fall for deeper scrutiny during trial.
The applicant was investigated with regard to the offences of drug trafficking and money laundering in the United States of America. He was arrested in the month of April, 2019, in the United Kingdom on extradition request of the US authorities on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The applicant entered into a plea agreement with the US authorities on 05.01.2024. He was convicted, but his sentence was reduced to 60 months. The applicant was released.
On his arrival in India, he was interrogated and finally arrested. It has been the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that as per the information received from the US authorities, the applicant along with his brother Parvinder Singh was operating an international drug trafficking group named as the Singh DTO (Drug Trafficking Organization).
It used vendor marketing sites on the dark web, numerous free advertisements on clear websites, and a network of narcotic and controlled-substance distributors and distribution cells to sell drugs. In exchange, the Singh Organization received drug trafficking proceeds in the form of crypto currency and laundered these proceeds through crypto currency wallets.
The Singh Organization received the drug trafficking proceeds through the sales on dark web markets, then laundered those proceeds through crypto currency transactions. Both brothers, i.e. the applicant and Parvinder Singh, used the monikers “Liston” and “Listonishere” on a variety of dark web markets. After his arrest in India, the statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 50 of the Act. The statement of Parvinder Singh was also recorded under Section 50 of the Act.
The ED contended that huge amounts were transmitted by the applicant in his or his family members in India through foreign accounts. The applicant did not have any other source of income from 2011 to 2017 and the applicant did not reveal as to how he got the money.
The court rejected the bail application and held there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Banmeet Singh Versus Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: First Bail Application No. 1760 of 2024
Date: 07.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Aditya Singh
Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain
