While denying him bail, special judge Vikas Dhull had observed that Jain was not entitled to the benefit of bail with respect to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
“In the opinion of this court, ‘proceeds of crime’ was the amount which was generated by applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain while working as a Minister in the Government of Delhi, for which he could not satisfactorily account for,” it underlined.
The sepcial court had rejected the defense counsel’s contention that Jain was a “minority shareholder” in the companies and said,
“Shareholding of applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain in the companies would have been relevant if the companies had earned income through legitimate means.”
Jain was stated to have made use of the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of ₹15 lakh by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata-based entry operators in his company.
“Jain had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher,” the order had said.
Source: Barandbench
