E-Paper
Samrala man gets 4-yr RI for money laundering
The court has also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on Sukhjinder Singh Dhillon from Samrala in Ludhiana district
The PMLA court here has sentenced a Samrala resident to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment in a 2010 money laundering case.
The court has also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on Sukhjinder Singh Dhillon from Samrala in Ludhiana district. He is held guilty and convicted under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The complaint was filed by the assistant director, directorate of enforcement, ministry of finance mentioning that earlier, the Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, had registered a case for drug smuggling against Baljinder Singh, his son Sukhjinder Singh, and John Kennedy Uzoigwe. In March 2011, the court convicted the three accused.
As the offences under the NDPS Act were scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, therefore, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the present case in January 2010.
The case was registered against Baljinder, his wife Amarjit Kaur, sons Navjinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh under the provisions of PMLA, for money laundering.
As per prosecution, the accused had no source of income and neither were filing any income tax return, yet about ₹45 lacs were deposited in their bank accounts without any source.
The 8 kg heroin, which was recovered in the drugs case, was bought for ₹35 lakh.
“During investigation, it was revealed that the accused were involved in money laundering arising out of the proceeds from drug crime,” the prosecution argued.
While Baljinder died during the trial, his son Navjinder has been declared a proclaimed offender. Amarjit was acquitted for lack of evidence.
In the court, the special public prosecutor for the ED argued that the socio economic offence has been committed by the convict, which was a threat to the society.
“The accused have failed to show any legal source of income, but being in possession of several properties and bank accounts with substantial amounts only goes to show the same to be proceeds of crime as discussed earlier, and the order of the provisional attachment and the confirmation of the same holding such properties to be proceeds of crime is also to be rebutted by the accused,” the court observed.
