Satyendar Jain’s ED custody extended by 4 days to June 13
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Thursday sent the Delhi health minister Satyendar Jain to Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) custodial interrogation till June 13 in connection with an alleged money laundering case.
Special judge Geetanjali Goel extended Jain’s custody after he was produced by the agency at the end of his nine-day remand on Thursday. Meanwhile, Jain, who has denied the charges and called the action “political vendetta”, also moved bail in the same court.
ED arrested Jain on May 30 in a case related to money laundering and hawala transactions from Kolkata-based shell companies.
ASG SV Raju, appearing for the agency, had sought Jain’s custody for five days, saying during his earlier custody, the agency had conducted searches at eight locations connected with the accused which led to discovery of certain incriminating documents, unaccounted cash of approximately ₹2.85 crores along with 133 gold coins valued at ₹92.56 lakh.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jain, opposed ED’s application, saying the accused was already in agency’s custody and that there was no ground to further extend his custody.
The case against Jain is based on a 2017 CBI FIR lodged against the AAP minister. ED has accused him of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and where he was holding shares, while amassing disproportionate income.
According to ED, Jain transferred money to Kolkata through hawala channel and got it back from dummy companies in the form of accommodation entries, even though he could not show the source of the money received.
Accommodation entries are usually done by hawala operators to accommodate illegal money in a company through a shell firm or in the form of cash by breaking large amounts into smaller sums to avoid suspicion.
Jain’s counsel, senior advocate N Hari Haran, earlier said that there is nothing new in ED’s case, and it was “a replica of the CBI case”. Opposing ED’s remand application in a Delhi court, Jain’s counsel argued that even in the CBI case, the agency “has not been able to point out any source of income”. He said that Jain was an architect who was given a share in the companies named in the case.
“I (Jain) was an architect. What the company does is none of my business. I resigned from the company upon assuming office [as a Delhi minister],” the lawyer said on behalf of Jain.
Last Friday, opposing a petition by Jain that his lawyer should be allowed to be present during his questioning, ED told the high court that since there is no FIR or prosecution complaint by the agency against Jain, he is not an “accused”, and has only for questioning. Jain’s legal team contended that this was just a ruse to deny him his rights.