Cooperated with ED, minister Jain tells Delhi HC

Jain’s counsel contended there are no “proceeds of crime” in the case which only has a “notional basis”.

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on Thursday told the Delhi high court that he has fully cooperated with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its money laundering probe against him, and said that he has not made any attempt to tamper with the evidence.

AAP legislator and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain. (File)

Jain was arrested by the ED on May 30, 2022 and in currently lodged in Tihar jail.

Seeking bail in the case, AAP leader told justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma that he has appeared before the central agency on several occasions. “Five years after registration of ECIR (enforcement case information report, the equivalent of a first information report or FIR) and having joined the investigation on a number of occasions, Jain was arrested on May 30, 2022,” senior advocate N Hariharan told the court.

The lawyer contended there are no “proceeds of crime” in the case which only has a “notional basis”, adding that Jain is no further required in the jail as the charge sheet has already been filed.

After hearing part arguments, the high court listed the matter for further proceedings on January 17.

During the hearing, additional solicitor general SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the court the agency has also filed an affidavit in the matter. Jain’s counsel said he will file a reply to it.

Jain has sought bail in the ED’s case registered on September 30, 2017 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and said in his plea that he is neither in a position to influence the witnesses nor tamper with evidence nor a flight risk.

The AAP leader has challenged the trial court’s November 17 order by which his bail plea was dismissed on the ground that he was prima facie involved in concealing the proceeds of crime. In his plea, Jain has claimed that since he was not in possession of any proceeds, the offence under the PMLA was not made out.

The petition has claimed the special judge and the ED gravely misread and misapplied the PMLA by identifying proceeds of crime solely on the basis of accommodation entries which cannot by itself constitute a punishable offence under the Act.