|
In a significant ruling balancing stringent anti-money-laundering provisions with constitutional safeguards, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to businessman Bhupesh Arora, observing that continued custody without a clear financial trail directly linking him to the alleged proceeds of crime would be unwarranted.
The matter was decided by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa led the defence team for Arora, along with advocates Hemant Shah, Akshay Rana, Saurabh Pal, Vishal Maan, Ojas Kaushik, Aishwarya Shahi, Ashutosh Kumar, Namisha Jain, Shreya Chauhan and Aamani Golay. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, along with panel counsel Vivek Gurnani and advocates Kartik Sabharwal and Pranjal Tripathi. The case stems from an ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with a cyber fraud involving an online investment application named "LOXAM," which allegedly lured investors with promises of high returns. Investigators claimed that the defrauded funds were routed through virtual accounts, moved into mule accounts, converted into cash and foreign currency, and transferred abroad through hawala channels. According to the ED, Arora was the mastermind and ultimate beneficiary of the laundering network. The agency alleged that he controlled multiple shell entities and routed fraud proceeds through intermediaries and forex operators, facilitating conversion of funds into cash and foreign exchange before sending them overseas. The defence refuted these allegations, submitting that Arora was neither named nor chargesheeted in the predicate offence and that no direct financial trail connected him to the alleged proceeds of crime. It was argued that key witnesses initially did not implicate him and that subsequent statements were inconsistent. The defence further submitted that Arora cooperated with investigators, posed no flight risk, and that prolonged incarceration violated his right to personal liberty and a speedy trial. While examining the bail plea, the Court considered the twin conditions for bail under the PMLA and observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not directly linked to the proceeds of crime at this stage. It noted that most of the evidence was documentary in nature and already in the possession of the investigating agency. The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the absence of direct material demonstrating that the applicant projected illicit funds as legitimate income. Observing that the trial is likely to take considerable time, the Court held that indefinite pre-trial detention would be unjustified. Although the investigation indicates a wider transnational fraud network involving foreign nationals, shell companies, mule accounts and online investment applications targeting Indian investors, the Court observed that the precise role and culpability of the accused would be determined during trial. Taking into account that the investigation is complete and the prosecution complaint has been filed, the Court granted bail subject to conditions ensuring his participation in trial proceedings. The ruling underscores that even under stringent provisions of the PMLA, pre-trial detention should not become punitive when evidence remains contested and personal liberty is at stake. (ANI)
|
