Tahir’s plea against money laundering charges junked
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday rejected former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain’s plea challenging the charges framed against him in a money laundering case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying that he acted “prima facie in conspiracy and engaged in money laundering with the proceeds of crime generated”.
Justice Anu Malhotra said that Hussain used the proceeds of crime, generated by fraudulently withdrawing money from the accounts of companies he owned or controlled through bogus and mala fide transactions, for riots.
According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Hussain “hatched a criminal conspiracy with his associates to fraudulently withdraw money from the accounts of companies i.e. M/s. Show Effect Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. (SEAPL), M/s. Essence Cellcom Pvt. Ltd. (ECPL) and M/s. Essence Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (EGSPL) owned and controlled by him through bogus and mala fide transactions with bogus entry operators on the strength of fake bills and used this money to fund the Delhi riots”.
The court said that Hussain obtained property as a result of the criminal activity, which made him prima facie culpable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. It said that there was no “infirmity” in the trial court’s order of framing charges against Hussain. “That there were no proceeds of crime attached is not relevant, in as much as, in terms of Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the process or activity in connection with the proceeds of crime i.e. hatching a criminal conspiracy for violation of tax/ laws for subsequent use of such untainted money for funding riots in the North-eastern part of Delhi, falls within the domain of commission of a criminal conspiracy..,” justice Malhotra said in a 100-page judgment.
On November 15, the court reserved its order on Hussain’s plea challenging the trial court’s order of November 3 order which framed charges of the alleged offence under Sections 3 (offence of money laundering) and 4 (punishment for the offence of money laundering) of the PMLA against him. The trial court, in its order, said that prima facie Hussain conspired to engage in money laundering and the proceeds generated from the crime were used for the riots. Challenging this decision, Hussain’s counsel had told the court that no property or proceeds of crime were seized from his client which could justify the framing of charges against him for the alleged offence of money laundering.