Mumbai: The special PMLA court has refused to discharge a consultancy firm from the money laundering case observing that even if the person is said to have no knowledge, but if a person directly or indirectly is involved in any activity connected with the proceeds of crime, he can be prosecuted for money laundering.
The special court was hearing discharge plea of Aditya Vijay Kashyap (58) Director of M/s. Positive Global Service & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Trade Connect. They were being prosecuted for their role in the money laundering in connection with the case registered against group of accused who floated a firm namely Fortis International Company Finance (India) Ltd, but had no connection with international firm Fortis International Inc.
ED had alleged that ‘Khalique Ahmed along with Devendra Gailad, Vinayak Sheshadri, Sudip Khanna incorporated in the name of Fortis International Company Finance (India) Ltd. Along with this they floated various other companies with an intention to form a group of companies to be in the business of providing finance although they were not a part of London based Fortis International Inc or any of its subsidiaries.’
According to the original complaint registered with the Sahar police station, the accused had defrauded the Bhatia Group of Companies and induced it to believe, that their firm is original finance company, as Bhatia group was looking for finances.
The brokers allegedly introduced the accused as the officer bearers of London based finance firm having 100 Billion Euros in their account. The accused offered to give the complainant loan to the tune of US $ 550 Million for its business.
With this, it is alleged that the complainant paid for an amount of Rs 70.45 crores towards processing charges, bank guarantee fees and other charges, while paid Rs 5 crores paid in cash to Aditya Kashyap. It is also alleged that Kunal Kashyap, the Director of M/s Trade Connect received Rs 91.68 lakhs from M/s FIC FIL as reference fee and brokerage.
While seeking discharge, the accused argued that they are not made an accused in the predicate offence registered by Sahar police station. Also they claimed that they were not aware that the money received were nothing but part of proceeds of crime.
The court however said that, ‘if a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or is actually involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is also guilty of the offence of money laundering. As such having knowledge is not the condition precedent.”
“So far as question of having knowledge or intention is concerned that is the matter of fact which would require trial to be conducted by this Court. In this matter, the direct involvement of the accused in the activity connected with the proceeds of crime has been alleged and prima-facie has been established by way of documents filed along with the complaint. Accordingly, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against them with the trial,” the court said.
