Read Time: 11 minutes

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has informed the Bombay High Court that Anil Deshmukh, by virtue of his earlier position as Home Minister of Maharashtra obtained undue advantage from his improper and dishonest performance of public duty. 

In the bail application moved by Deshmukh in the corruption case that ED started to probe May last year, it has been argued by ED that no case for bail has been made out since Deshmukh has been non-cooperative and evasive and has not attended to the investigation though summoned on numerous occasions.

Arguing that Deshmukh is a very influential person having deep political roots, ED has stated in its counter affidavit that there is a likelihood of him attempting to influence the investigation and witnesses.

"There is also a strong possibility of the Applicant obfuscating the trail of Proceeds of Crime and/or tampering with the evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that statements of various suspected persons are yet to be recorded who are avoiding appearance before the investigation", the counter affidavit reads.

ED had initiated the money-laundering investigation on May 11, on the basis of an FIR under Section 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered by the CBI against Deshmukh and others for allegedly attempting to obtain undue advantage for the improper and dishonest performance of their public duty for collection of funds to achieve the target of Rs. 100 crore per month from various bars, restaurants and other establishments in Mumbai.

The affidavit filed by Tassine Sultan, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India states that Deshmukh is the mastermind of the entire conspiracy hatched with his son Hrishikesh Deshmukh, Sachin Waze, Sanjeev Palande, Kundan Shinde & others.

It is further submitted that Deshmukh has been laundering his unaccounted money in cash through his family member and associates.

"The Applicant using modus operandi of infusing cash as share capital through shell companies and projecting the same as legitimate has built a formidable empire of businesses. Investigations have revealed that the Applicant has infused his unaccounted cash money to the tune of Rs.9.82 Crore in banking system by way of raising bogus share capital through Kolkata based shell companies", submits the affidavit.

In the affidavit, the ED has also submitted statements of Sachin Waze, Deshmukh’s personal secretary Sanjeev Palande, Ravi Shivaji Vhatkar, Sitaram Kunte IAS, and Parambir Singh.

Further, rejecting Deshmukh's allegation that the entire case against him is based only on statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, the ED has submitted that,

"...said allegations of the Applicant would have to be considered at the stage of trial when the witnesses would be examined and the question of conducting a mini-trial at the stage of bail cannot and would not arise. The purported allegations are not only baseless but factually incorrect." 

The Affidavit adds that an analysis of various bank accounts has been done including that of Shri Sai Shikshan Sanstha wherein proceeds of crime have been parked and based on that money trail has been derived.

"It would therefore be evident that the case against the Applicant is not based on a solitary statement but is based on several materials being the statements, money trails and other evidences all of which have been set out in detail in the complaints filed by the Directorate."

ED has further argued that Deshmukh has neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court has sought to address the facts set out against him qua the laundering of proceeds of crime.

Furthermore, pointing out that the bail application has been filed under Section 439 of CrPC, the reply states that  bail under PMLA, 2002 needs to be considered u/s 45 of the PMLA, 2002.

"The rigors of the twin conditions for grant of bail envisaged u/s 45 of PMLA, 2002 (now amended) must be first satisfied before considering grant of bail to an accused. As per Section 45 (2) of PMLA, 2002, these twin conditions are in addition to the general limitations stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", the affidavit states.

With respect to the allegation raised by Deshmukh that the entire case against him is actuated by malice, ED has submitted that the said contention is completely belied and bereft of merit.

"The Directorate has and is performing its statutory duty and has conducted investigation in a proper and impartial manner and the statements and material speak for themselves and clearly evince the fact that the Applicant has been committing offences of money laundering.", ED has stated.

Deshmukh had approached the Bombay High Court (HC) last year challenging the summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged money laundering case.

An FIR was registered against Deshmukh and some unidentified persons on April 24 last year on charges of corruption and misconduct following a preliminary inquiry that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted in compliance with the high court's order. In July last year, the High Court had refused to quash the FIR lodged by the CBI.

In related news, a Special CBI court on April 6, remanded ex-Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in CBI's custody till April 11, 2022 i.e. for five days, in a case pertaining to corruption in police transfer and posting process.

Case Title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh vs Directorate of Enforcement Through Assistant Director