Winsome Diamonds ₹4.6k cr laundering: PMLA court discharges bizman Jaikumar Begani

A PMLA court in Mumbai has discharged businessman Jaikumar Begani from a money laundering case linked to Winsome Diamonds due to lack of evidence.

MUMBAI: A special PMLA court has discharged businessman Jaikumar Begani from the money laundering case involving Winsome Diamonds and Jewelleries Ltd (WDJL), which had allegedly siphoned off over ₹4,627 crore from the loans it had obtained from several public sector banks.

Jatin Mehta, the main accused in the case

Special judge VP Desai discharged Begani from the money laundering case on Tuesday primarily because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had given him a clean chit in the predicate offence, and there was no evidence to show he laundered the proceeds of crime.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had roped in the Ahmedabad-based businessman only because he was the managing director of M/s Forever Precious Jewellery and Diamonds Ltd (FPJDL), a subsidiary of WDJL for the relevant period, noted the special court. Even though no specific overt acts were attributed to him, he was named as a co-conspirator with the main accused and diamantaire Jatin Mehta of Winsome Diamonds and Jewelleries.

According to the investigating agencies, WDJL and FPJDL obtained huge loans from several public sector banks from 2008 onwards for importing gold and diamonds. However, Mehta resorted to the round-tripping of these goods by trading with 13 UAE-based companies that were fully under his control. The agencies further claimed that the entire money received by the UAE-based companies was siphoned off, and the funds were layered by routing through bank accounts in multiple countries. Some of the amounts were finally accumulated in the bank accounts of companies owned by Mehta’s wife, Sonia, and son, Suraj.

ED claimed that Begani, as FPJDL’s managing director, was solely in charge of manufacturing and exporting gold and studded gold jewellery, as well as retail sales, at the group’s 144 showrooms and outlets.

The special court, however, noted that there was no material to indicate that the Bengani was concerned with jewellery export. Besides, the court also said the CBI had registered 12 FIRs against the two companies based on complaints lodged by eight banks and Begani’s name was mentioned only in two FIRs – in complaints lodged by Canara Bank and the IDBI Bank.

The central agency had filed two chargesheets in two cases, including the Canara Bank case. However, it found no incriminating evidence against Begani in the case, and there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the businessman. In the IDBI Bank case, the special court noted that although eight years have passed since CBI registered the FIRs, it had neither concluded the probe nor filed a chargesheet. In any case, as the ED’s money laundering case makes no mention of the IDBI Bank case, it was irrelevant for deciding Begani’s discharge application, said the court.