Two convicted by Delhi Court under PMLA Act for defrauding bank

New Delhi [India], April 2 : The Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi has convicted two people accused of committing the offense of money-laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Special Judge Mohd Farrukh, in a judgment passed on March 30, stated that the prosecution/Directorate of Enforcement has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Mukesh Jain and Nipun Bansal have committed offenses of
money-laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA and they are convicted accordingly.
However, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of money-laundering against Shiv Kumar Bhargava and Benu Jain and thus, they are acquitted under Section 3 of the PMLA, said the court in the judgment.
Naveen Kumar Matta, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), appeared for the Directorate of Enforcement.
The court in the judgment further stated that the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs 56,10,000 attached is part of the Proceeds of Crime (PoC) and therefore, it is confiscated by the Central Government in terms of Section 8 (5) of the PMLA.
However, Rs 10,00,000 lying in the bank account of M/s SG and getting frozen by the CBI in the predicate offence case were already directed to be defrozed and thereafter, to be deposited with the complainant, i.e., M/s SIFCL, vide judgment dated November 25, 2023, in the scheduled offence case.
The Court further added that since M/s SIFCL suffered a loss of Rs 1,06,71,000 as
a result of criminal activity by accused Mukesh Jain, aforesaid properties in the sum of Rs. 56,10,000/- confiscated by this Court shall be restored to M/s SIFCL and accordingly, the Central Government is given direction U/s 8(8) of PMLA to restore the same to M/s SIFCL.
Accused Pramod Kumar Pandey and Adhiraj Kumar be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for 15.04.2024 to face.the trial afresh and separately under Section 3 of PMLA punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, said the court.
According to ED's ECIR, it's case was based on a CBI FIR, which was registered against unknown bank officials and others for the commission of offenses of defrauding Punjab National Bank, Lucknow. After completion of the investigation into the aforesaid allegations, the CBI filed a charge sheet, concluding that during October 2008 to March 2009, accused persons and other co-accused (public servant) conspired among themselves to forge and fabricate eight cheques; three cheques were encashed/cleared and an amount of Rs 1,46,71,000 was credited to bank accounts operated by Mukesh Jain and accused Nipun Bansa, causing wrongful loss to PNB and its account-holders and wrongful gain to themselves.
It was also concluded in the investigation that the aforesaid accused also attempted to encash the remaining five forged and fabricated cheques to the tune of Rs 2,72,38,000, however, their attempts could not fructify as the forgery of cheques was detected by the banks concerned. On these premises, the accused persons were sent up to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B 420/467/468/471/511 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof.
In the mattet, the ED stated that on the strength of the FIR registered by the CBI and the chargesheet filed, the present ECIR was recorded on December 14, 2009, against the aforesaid accused persons, alleging that since the offences in the CBI case were part of Scheduled Offenses under the PMLA case, it was made out for investigation for the commission of an offense under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA against the accused persons. Thereafter, inquiries under PMLA were initiated and statements of various persons, including accused persons, were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA 2002, Documents and bank account statements were collected from different agencies and banks.
After completion of the investigation, ED filed the present complaint and stated that, the aggregate 'PoC' was Rs 1,46,71,000, which was laundered by the accused persons in the present case.