AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suvra Ghosh, J
The genesis of the case lies in the letter of complaint lodged by one Rahul Ranjan, Regional Manager, Regional Office-III Canara Bank pursuant to which FIR no. 290 of 2022 was registered on October 14, 2022 before Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the accused persons fraudulently opened fictitious bank accounts with Canara Bank by utilising forged documents to facilitate fictitious transactions amounting to Rs. 77 crores with the intent of cheating. Upon detecting unusually high volume of debit transactions in the said accounts within a span of less than a month, the bank held enquiry and found that the entities in question were neither conducting any business operation at the address provided, nor residing at the permanent residential address. On the basis of the statements of investors who transferred funds to the bank accounts in question, the petitioner’s name transpired. The investors had acquired knowledge of forex trading and received training on the IX Global platform. They were instructed to invest funds in TP Global FX with the expectation of generating substantial returns. It is alleged that the petitioner was a distributor of IX Global LLC and misled the public to induce them into investing on the TP Global FX platform. Two bank accounts maintained with the HDFC Bank were traced and it was found that one of these accounts reflected credit transactions including a transfer of Rs. 19.40 lakhs to the account of the petitioner from an identity identified as TP Global Services. The accounts were thereafter frozen. The petitioner was taken into custody on December 24, 2023 in connection with the PMLA Case being M.L. Case No. 1 of 2023 and was formally shown as arrested in the predicate offence on January 8, 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been named as an accused in the predicate offences being Hare Street P.S. Cases no. 290 of 2022 and 297 of 2022 and is on bail in both the cases. None of the witnesses has indicated that the petitioner was instrumental in operating the accounts opened at Canara Bank. Though it is alleged that both Tushar Patel and the petitioner are part of the conspiracy, the petitioner only acted as an influencer for Tushar’s Company. There is no evidence to show that TP Global is a part of IX Global. The petitioner had a brand ambassador agreement with IX Global LLC and was not connected to TP Global in any manner whatsoever.
The petitioner has accounted for the money found in his bank accounts and has also admitted the commission received by him in lieu of services rendered as an influencer, in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. The other amounts seized from him were received from investment made in his personal capacity and cannot be termed as proceeds of crime. He himself disclosed information regarding properties bought with the commission received. It is alleged that the petitioner suggested his students to trade with TP Global, but there was no mandate. The witnesses cited by the E.D. are official witnesses and none of the witnesses whose statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA appears as a witness in the charge sheet. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the last statement being recorded on January 7, 2024. The last seizure was made on January 11, 2024. The petitioner neither visited Kolkata, nor participated in creation of documents. The co-accused whose bail prayer was turned down by this Court does not stand on the same footing as the petitioner since he was part of TP Global.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his contention.
1) Prem Prakash v/s. Union of India reported in (2024) 9 Supreme Court Cases 787;
2) Pankaj Bansal v/s. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 576;
3) Arvind Kejriwal v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703;
4) P. Chidambaram v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 337, and
5) Manish Sisodia v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.
Vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as the E.D.) has submitted that the case was initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Regional Manager, Canara Bank, wherein it has been alleged that huge transaction has been noticed in the account of M/s. T.M. Traders and M/s. K.K. Traders maintained at Canara Bank, Narendrapur branch which were opened on August 31, 2022. Huge debit transaction appeared in the aforesaid account on September 17, 2022 within a span of less than a month for which the bank suspected the credibility of the transactions and verified the entities’ registered address as per bank records. Upon verification it was discovered that no such party was carrying on business at the given address furnished in the account opening form, nor were the parties residing at the permanent residential address in Jamshedpur. The entire credits were effected through UPI, NEFT and RTGS transactions and thereafter transferred to multiple accounts by the customers to the parties through internet banking. The platform of TP Global FX was used in the funding of forex. On the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Kolkata Police, the E.D. initiated enquiries under the PMLA against the petitioner and other accused persons and subsequently recorded an ECIR.
It has transpired during investigation that investors intending to invest in forex trading were asked to join training programmes at IX Global which were operated by the petitioner and one Joseph Martinez who promoted the training programmes as brokers for the trade and encouraged the public to use the online platform of TP Global FX for their investment in forex trading. After such investment, the money was transferred to the accounts maintained with various banks reflected in the platform and they were unable to withdraw their own money.
Since the petitioner failed to co-operate in investigation despite notices being issued upon him under Section 50 of the PMLA, a Look Out Circular was issued against him on the basis of which he was intercepted on December 24, 2023 and arrested on December 25, 2025. More than 2000 accounts were opened by the petitioner and other co accused which were investigated by the E.D. Though the petitioner posed as an influencer, investigation reveals that the proceeds of crime were transferred to the petitioner’s accounts.
The petitioner is an accused in both the predicate offences. He is a kingpin who was involved in promotion of illegal activities in the name of forex trading. The petitioner used to reside in Dubai and operated TP Global in Dubai. Therefore he is at flight risk. He is responsible for manipulation of documents and chances of his influencing the investigation cannot be ruled out. He has not been able to overcome the rigours of Section 24 of the PMLA. He has committed an economic offence which strikes at the backbone of the system. In the view of the nine criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 479 of the BNSS.
Learned counsel has submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner is in custody since December 25, 2023. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot render Section 45(1) of the PMLA otiose.
Learned counsel for the E.D. has placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his contention.
1) Shri Shailesh Kumar Pandey v/s. The Union of India in CRM (SB) 206 of 2023;
2) Shailesh Kumar Pandey v/s. The Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 11385/2024;
3) Rohit Tandon v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2018) 11 SCC 46;
4) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439;
5) Tarun Kumar v/s. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486;
6) Gautam Kundu v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1;
7) Vijay Madanlal Choudhury & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine SC 929, and
8) The Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), has observed as hereunder:-
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.”
The said proposition of law has been echoed in the authorities in Rohit Tandon (supra), Tarun Kumar (supra) and the Union of India through the Assistant Director (supra).
It is also trite law that the conditions specified under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with before an accused is released on bail.
According to Section 24 of the PMLA, it shall be presumed that the proceeds of crime in any proceedings relating thereto are involved in money laundering unless the contrary is proved by the persons charged with the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in Prem Prakash (supra), has observed that once the E.D. establishes the three foundational facts, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering by production of evidence which is within his personal knowledge. The three foundational facts are as follows:-
i. That a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been committed;
ii. That the property in question has been derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of such criminal activity; and
iii. That the person concerned is directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the said property which constitutes proceeds of crime.
In the present case, the petitioner appears to have been an independent distributor of IX Global from April 2020. He was thereafter associated with the said concern as an executive influencer. IX Global was operated by the petitioner and one Joseph Martinez who allegedly conducted training programmes at IX Global for public/investors intending to invest in forex trading and encouraged them to use the online platform of TP Global FX for such investment. The petitioner’s alleged involvement transpired from the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA, the truth and veracity of which need to be weighed during trial. The petitioner was arrested on December 24, 2023 and his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded thereafter.
In the authority in Prem Prakash (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 of the PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker for the reason that he cannot be considered as a person operating with a free mind. Therefore the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 50 of the Act during his custody is inadmissible against him. However, in such statement, the petitioner has disclosed before the authority the commission received by him from promotional activities of various products of IX Global and information regarding the properties purchased out of the commission received. According to him, he was introduced to Joseph Martinez on whose proposal he agreed to join IX Global. He has disclosed the modus operandi of IX Global and has stated that TP Global FX was an online platform which functioned as a forex broker and was promoted by various ranks of IX Global to its customers. He has further disclosed that in 2021, he was invited to visit the stall of TP Global FX in the Forex Expo organised in Dubai and to speak for the company as an influencer for which he was offered an amount of USD 45,000 approximately. He accordingly promoted the same as an influencer. In his statement, he admitted investment of crores of rupees and acquisition/purchase of movable and immovable properties.
Admittedly TP Global FX was declared to be illegal by the Reserve Bank of India which issued an Alert List by a press release dated September 7, 2022 disclosing names of companies including that of TP Global FX which were involved in forex trading without any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India.
Though it is alleged that the petitioner and others induced investors to invest on the TP Global FX platform, the witnesses/investors have neither indicated that IX Global mandated investment with TP Global FX, nor that the petitioner was instrumental in operating the accounts opened with Canara Bank, Kolkata. The witnesses cited are all official witnesses. The investors/witnesses whose statements have been recorded in course of investigation have not found place in the list of witnesses.
The petitioner has been granted bail in both the predicate offences. It is essential to turn to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authority in Vijay Madan lal Choudhary (supra) which is as follows:-
“From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form - be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence – except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that “the authority of the Authorised Officer under the 2002 Act to prosecute any person for offence of money-laundering gets triggered only if there exists proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act and further it is involved in any process or activity. Not even in a case of existence of undisclosed income and irrespective of its volume, the definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence ……. Even though, the 2002 Act is a complete Code in itself, it is only in respect of matters connected with offence of money-laundering and for that, existence of proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act is quintessential. Absent existence of proceeds of crime, as aforesaid, the authorities under the 2002 Act cannot step in or initiate any prosecution.”
Herein, the material on record does not prima facie connect the petitioner to opening of accounts or inducing investors to invest on the TP Global FX platform. The petitioner’s explanation with regard to receipt of huge amount of money and acquisition of property need to be verified at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. Co-accused Shailesh Kumar Pandey whose bail prayer was turned down by this Court was allegedly instrumental in opening bank accounts of dummy firms and received commission of 2% on the entire credits received in the accounts of dummy firms which appeared on TP Global FX platform where the investors made their investment in the name of forex trading. The role of the petitioner in the alleged offence can be distinguished from that of the co-accused. The petitioner does not appear to be similarly circumstanced with him.
Learned counsel for the ED has submitted that since the petitioner initially evaded arrest and was apprehended pursuant to a Look Out Circular issued against him, he is at flight risk. According to the learned counsel, he may tamper with evidence and influence witnesses if granted bail at this stage.
In my considered view, attendance of the petitioner can be secured by imposing stringent conditions. The witnesses cited in the complaint are official witnesses and there is little scope for the petitioner to influence them. The case is based on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D. The petitioner has no scope to tamper with the same.
The petitioner is in custody since December 24, 2023. Investigation is complete. Trial is yet to commence. His statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was lastly recorded on January 7, 2024 and search and seizure were completed on January 11, 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights of the accused which ought to be given due weightage. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental rights of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the prayer for bail should not be opposed since Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of crime. A constitutonal Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to hold that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not amount to punitive detention. Since the petitioner is in custody for about 2 years and trial is yet to commence, he should be released on bail primarily on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the application for bail being C.R.M. (SB) 29 of 2025 is allowed.
The petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) with adequate sureties, half of whom should be local, subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioner shall surrender his passport with the learned trial Court at once.
b. He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court without leave of the trial Court.
c. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing fixed before the learned Court.
d. He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
e. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses.
f. He shall provide his mobile number before the learned trial Court and shall not change the said number without prior intimation to the Court.
In the event the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.
It is made clear that the observation made in this judgment is for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation which may have been made in this judgment.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court
Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.