A stupid man cannot launder money, ED tells SC
Agency defends its push to arrest former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media case
29/08/2019, KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL ,NEW DELHI
“A stupid man cannot launder [money],” the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court, defending its push to arrest former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media case.
The ED is investigating the money laundering angle in the case.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, told the court that a “stupid man cannot launder” because the crime requires “layers and layers of concealment” devised by a crafty brain.
Mr. Mehta then explained the “basics” of money laundering to a Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna.
“If I rob a bank — this is only an example for the benefit of Your Lordships' understanding — of ₹2,000 crore, I have to park the money somewhere. So I launder the proceeds of the crime... Money laundering is never thought of in the heat of the moment... It has to be cleverly crafted,” he said.
It was usually difficult to trace the money trail. Transactions were digital and global. “It is not like rape where forensics can collect blood stains,” he said.
India, he said, was part of an international community which has vowed to wipe out the global phenomenon of money laundering. The crime had affected the integrity and economy of nations.
‘It is prevention’
Mr. Chidambaram’s lawyers have described the arrest as a deliberate attempt to humiliate the senior Congress leader. “They say it was humiliation, humiliation, humiliation. We say it is prevention, prevention, prevention,” Mr. Mehta said.
Money laundering was an independent crime and the offenders faced extradition. The question of custodial interrogation should be left to the special court to decide, he noted.
The probe agencies have based their case against Mr. Chidambaram on cogent evidence and not on fabricated records, as contended by the other side, he said. “We have received material, like records from banks all over the world... We have been given specific inputs like house numbers, companies which own them, etc,” he said.
Mr. Mehta submitted that a statutory procedure was followed before seeking arrest. Firstly, only a Director (of the ED) can make an arrest, that too, after recording the reasons for the arrest in writing. Any material collected as evidence in the course of investigation was sent to a neutral adjudicatory authority. The material was kept enclosed in doubly sealed envelopes and not opened. “It is too sensitive... Copies of evidence cannot be shared with accused before chargesheet is filed," he contended.
Sibal’s intervention
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Chidambaram, intervened to say he never argued for getting any copies of the evidence.
He argued only on the limited point that the ED should have confronted Mr. Chidambaram first with the evidence before using them in a sealed cover in the Delhi High Court to deny him anticipatory bail on August 20.
Mr. Sibal said this way the High Court could have had the benefit of both the evidence as well as Mr. Chidambaram’s reactions to them before deciding the question of anticipatory bail.
Mr. Sibal argued that Mr. Chidambaram was denied bail solely on the basis of sealed documents handed over to the Delhi High Court judge.
“He [Mr. Mehta] has got it wrong. I never said I wanted copies of the evidence. I only said the accused should have been confronted with the evidence first. Only such evidence should have been shown to the High Court to deny him anticipatory bail,” Mr. Sibal protested.
While both lawyers clashed over what was actually argued, Justice Banumathi drew on her past experience as trial judge to consult her handwritten notes of the arguments made in the past two days. Her notes agreed with Mr. Sibal's version.
Agency defends its push to arrest former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media case
29/08/2019, KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL ,NEW DELHI
“A stupid man cannot launder [money],” the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court, defending its push to arrest former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media case.
The ED is investigating the money laundering angle in the case.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, told the court that a “stupid man cannot launder” because the crime requires “layers and layers of concealment” devised by a crafty brain.
Mr. Mehta then explained the “basics” of money laundering to a Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna.
“If I rob a bank — this is only an example for the benefit of Your Lordships' understanding — of ₹2,000 crore, I have to park the money somewhere. So I launder the proceeds of the crime... Money laundering is never thought of in the heat of the moment... It has to be cleverly crafted,” he said.
It was usually difficult to trace the money trail. Transactions were digital and global. “It is not like rape where forensics can collect blood stains,” he said.
India, he said, was part of an international community which has vowed to wipe out the global phenomenon of money laundering. The crime had affected the integrity and economy of nations.
‘It is prevention’
Mr. Chidambaram’s lawyers have described the arrest as a deliberate attempt to humiliate the senior Congress leader. “They say it was humiliation, humiliation, humiliation. We say it is prevention, prevention, prevention,” Mr. Mehta said.
Money laundering was an independent crime and the offenders faced extradition. The question of custodial interrogation should be left to the special court to decide, he noted.
The probe agencies have based their case against Mr. Chidambaram on cogent evidence and not on fabricated records, as contended by the other side, he said. “We have received material, like records from banks all over the world... We have been given specific inputs like house numbers, companies which own them, etc,” he said.
Mr. Mehta submitted that a statutory procedure was followed before seeking arrest. Firstly, only a Director (of the ED) can make an arrest, that too, after recording the reasons for the arrest in writing. Any material collected as evidence in the course of investigation was sent to a neutral adjudicatory authority. The material was kept enclosed in doubly sealed envelopes and not opened. “It is too sensitive... Copies of evidence cannot be shared with accused before chargesheet is filed," he contended.
Sibal’s intervention
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Chidambaram, intervened to say he never argued for getting any copies of the evidence.
He argued only on the limited point that the ED should have confronted Mr. Chidambaram first with the evidence before using them in a sealed cover in the Delhi High Court to deny him anticipatory bail on August 20.
Mr. Sibal said this way the High Court could have had the benefit of both the evidence as well as Mr. Chidambaram’s reactions to them before deciding the question of anticipatory bail.
Mr. Sibal argued that Mr. Chidambaram was denied bail solely on the basis of sealed documents handed over to the Delhi High Court judge.
“He [Mr. Mehta] has got it wrong. I never said I wanted copies of the evidence. I only said the accused should have been confronted with the evidence first. Only such evidence should have been shown to the High Court to deny him anticipatory bail,” Mr. Sibal protested.
While both lawyers clashed over what was actually argued, Justice Banumathi drew on her past experience as trial judge to consult her handwritten notes of the arguments made in the past two days. Her notes agreed with Mr. Sibal's version.
No comments:
Post a Comment