Chartered Accountant involved in Money Laundering and Hawala Scam gets Anticipatory Bail

The Ahmedabad Court granted Anticipatory Bail to Chartered Accountants and other individuals accused of Money Laundering and involvement in a hawala fraud.

The Crime is recorded against the applicants-accused under sections 406, 420, 477-A, 120(B), and 114 of the IPC, as well as sections 66(D) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, and section 447 of the Companies Act.

He has claimed that the defendant in bail application no.643/2022 is a lady. He has maintained that the accusations levelled against applicants are based on the fact that they have not filed taxes. He claims that the Income Tax Department conducted a raid in 2018 and discovered Havalakand, and that as a result, a complaint under the Money Laundering Act was launched by Enforcement Directors in 2018 against one Chinese citizen.

It was also maintained that in 2018, there is no name of the accused and no inquiry/investigation by the Enforcement Director in the Delhi case. He claims that there is no transaction between Charlie Peng @ Lau Sing, a Chinese corporation, and the applicants. He claims that the Enforcement Directors have not yet taken any action. He has contended that applicants have given documentation evidence demonstrating that the same name as the current applicants’ company, Savariya International Pvt. Ltd., is registered in Delhi. He has contended that because the applicants’ company has a similar name and is located in Delhi, the action has been begun against them in lieu of the Savariya company of Delhi, and the applicants have no concern with the Chinese company. He claims that there is no connection and no transaction with the Chinese corporation.

The State has contended that all of these applications are for anticipatory bail. He has claimed that there is a hawala fraud. According to the FIR, the Registrar of the Company is located in Naranpura. The major agency is the Enforcement Director, and it is a significant agency that enters it indicates that something is wrong. He has claimed that the petitioners should be interrogated in custody. He has said that it is a major crime. As a result, no anticipatory bail may be granted, and the application is rejected.

Looking at the claims levied against them, the extra sessions judge, Dilipkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar, has held that there are no ingredients of breach of trust or dishonesty, etc. is not tenable. Given the police paperwork, there is no need to provide extensive conclusions and elaborate justifications. If a detailed order is issued, it will have a negative impact on and prejudice the rights of the parties as well as the inquiry, and it is equivalent to settling a trial without recording evidence.

The Accused CA Jigneshkumar Pravinbhai Hirapara was defended by Advocates Vishal J Dave and Nipun Singhvi.

To Read Order Download PDF Given Below: