Delhi minister Satyendar Jain remanded in ED custody till June 9

The central agency submitted that his custody was needed to confront him with voluminous material and ascertain the potential beneficiaries in the money laundering case

New Delhi: A CBI court on Tuesday remanded Delhi Cabinet minister Satyendar Jain in Enforcement Directorate custody till June 9 in connection with a money laundering case.

Jain was produced before Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel who remanded him in ED custody after the agency submitted that his custody was needed to confront him with voluminous material and ascertain the potential beneficiaries of the money laundering.

The ED had on Monday arrested Jain in a money laundering case based on a CBI FIR lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act under which he was accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the ED, initially sought 14 days’ custody of Jain. Mehta told the court that the agency had called Jain and did not arrest him straight away, but he remained evasive in his replies when they tried to investigate the matter.

Mehta, while going through the allegations against the accused, submitted that companies “beneficially owned and controlled by Jain” received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.

“There is a chequered trail of money. We don’t know whether the money belonged to him, was he laundering someone else’s money, whether this is the only trail or there is something more. Who are other potential beneficiaries of this money laundering? Evidence disclosed so far has not stopped at these few crores. Tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out,” SG Mehta told the court.

When the court asked why custody of 14 days was required, the SG said the “intricate nature of the money trail and the voluminous data” has to be considered.

“Many of the IPC offences can be committed in the heat of the moment. Money laundering is a calculated offence. Persons will erase the money trail. He will have to be confronted with the material and find out where the money came from and where the money is going… This is an offence of a recurring nature which he may be able to throw light on during custodial interrogation,” the SG told the court.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, who appeared for Jain, opposed the ED remand stating that the “grounds of arrest is nothing but reproduction of the chargesheet in the CBI case. Not an inch has moved. Five-six occasions they summoned him, he cooperated.”

Hariharan told the court that even in the CBI case the agency “has not been able to point out any source of income”, adding that Jain’s home was searched on two occasions and his bank accounts were seized. He told the court that he was an architect who was given a share in these companies as a consultant. “I was an architect. What the company does is none of my business. The land is in the name of those companies. I resigned from the companies on assuming office,” he added.

The SG rebutted this by stating, “It is interesting to know that it is profitable to be a non-practising architect and the consultancy fee is a huge share. No building has been constructed so far. Companies are, as per evidence, controlled by him.”

The case is based on a CBI FIR lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act under which he was accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.