Delhi minister Satyender Jain sent to ED custody till June 13

Special judge Geetanjali Goel extended Jain’s custody after he was produced by the agency at the end of his nine-day remand on Thursday. Meanwhile, Jain also moved a bail application in the same court.

A Delhi court on Thursday sent the city health minister Satyendar Jain to Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) custodial interrogation till June 13 in connection with an alleged money laundering case.

ED arrested Jain on May 30 in a case related to money laundering and hawala transactions from Kolkata-based shell companies. (ANI photo)

Special judge Geetanjali Goel extended Jain’s custody after he was produced by the agency at the end of his nine-day remand on Thursday. Meanwhile, Jain also moved a bail application in the same court.

ED arrested Jain on May 30 in a case related to money laundering and hawala transactions from Kolkata-based shell companies.

Additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the central agency, told the court that during his earlier custody, the ED conducted searches at several places and that certain incriminating material was found including cash and documents, etc. He told the court that the agency needed to confront Jain with certain documents.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jain, opposed ED’s application, saying the accused was already in agency’s custody and that there was no ground to further extend his custody.

The case against Jain is based on a 2017 CBI FIR lodged against the AAP minister minister. ED has accused him of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and where he was holding shares, while amassing disproportionate income.

According to ED, Jain transferred money to Kolkata through hawala channel and got it back from dummy companies in the form of accommodation entries, even though he could not show the source of the money received.

Accommodation entries are usually done by hawala operators to accommodate illegal money in a company through a shell firm or in the form of cash by breaking large amounts into smaller sums to avoid suspicion.

Jain’s counsel, senior advocate N Hari Haran, earlier said that there is nothing new in ED’s case, and it was “a replica of the CBI case”. Opposing ED’s remand application in a Delhi court, Jain’s counsel argued that even in the CBI case, the agency “has not been able to point out any source of income”.

He said that Jain was an architect who was given a share in the companies named above as a consultant. “I (Jain) was an architect. What the company does is none of my business. I resigned from the company upon assuming office [as a Delhi minister],” the lawyer said on behalf of Jain.

Last Friday, opposing a petition by Jain that his lawyer should be allowed to be present during his questioning, ED told the Delhi high court that since there is no FIR or prosecution complaint by the agency against Jain, and that he has been called only for questioning, Jain cannot claim the right to have the presence of his lawyers during the course of recording of his statement under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).