The News Caravan

Tag: Jains

  • Court seeks ED’s response to Satyendar Jain’s case transfer plea

    Court seeks ED’s response to Satyendar Jain’s case transfer plea

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday sought the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s response to an application moved by jailed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain seeking transfer of a money laundering case to another judge.

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta issued notice to the ED on Jain’s plea, returnable by May 4, the next date of hearing in the matter.

    The court, however, refused to stay the proceedings before Special Judge Vikas Dhull, who is currently hearing the case, during the pendency of the application.

    MS Education Academy

    Jain on Tuesday sought transfer of two cases related to alleged corruption and money laundering brought against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED to another judge.

    Both the cases are currently being heard by Special Judge Dhull.

    The proceedings in the CBI corruption case have been temporarily halted by the District Judge until May 4, when arguments on Jain’s transfer application will be heard.

    Jain was placed under arrest on May 30, 2022, by the central agency under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

    The ED had initiated a money laundering investigation on the basis of the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2017 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 against Jain, his wife Poonam Jain, and Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain, and Ankush Jain.

    The CBI has alleged that Jain, while holding the office as a Minister in the Delhi government during February 14, 2015 to May 31, 2017, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

    A charge sheet was filed by the CBI on December 3, 2018, against Jain, his wife Poonam Jain, and other accused.

    Earlier, the ED had provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to companies beneficially owned and controlled by Jain on March 31, 2022.

    [ad_2]
    #Court #seeks #EDs #response #Satyendar #Jains #case #transfer #plea

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • It is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s: Co-accused tell Delhi HC

    It is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s: Co-accused tell Delhi HC

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, while taking note of the submissions of jailed minister Satyendar Jain’s co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, listed the matter for next hearing on February 8.

    Appearing for Ankush and Vaibhav Jain, counsel Sushil Kumar Gupta said: “We have been roped in because the company, as per the Enforcement Directorate, belonged to Satyendar Jain.”

    He added: “We are stating that it is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s.”

    On Monday, Gupta had said: “Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with the company. All the companies belong to us.”

    Special Judge Vikas Dhull had denied the two bail on November 17 last year.

    Gupta said: “We were having an effective position in the company. We had sent the money/cash to Kolkata-based companies.”

    He argued that there are no “proceeds of crime” in the present case and according to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) charge-sheet, it is generated only at the end of the cheque period.

    “The whole fulcrum of a PMLA case lies on the proceeds of crime,” he said.

    Gupta further argued that the present case uses a disproportionate assets (DA) case, which is a period-specific offence, but to establish an offence under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate has to establish “proceeds of crime”.

    Earlier, Satyendar Jain’s counsel N. Hariharan had asked how is the minister involved in the present case and how is he related to it as the money belonged to Ankush and Vaibhav Jain, which came back to their account without any premium.

    “My (Satyendar Jain’s) assets before and after the cheque period remained the same,” he had said.

    [ad_2]
    #company #Satyendar #Jains #Coaccused #Delhi

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )