What the Supreme Court said while denying relief to Rana Ayyub in money-laundering case

In a huge setback to journalist Rana Ayyub, the Supreme Court on Tuesday disregarded her plea hard the summons issued via way of means of the Special PMLA courtroom docket in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Ayyub had approached the Supreme Court after a unique CBI courtroom docket in Ghaziabad took recognition of the criticism report, i.e. the chargesheet, filed via way of means of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in opposition to her.

The ED has filed a case referring to allegations of corruption and cash laundering withinside the series of donated price range via crowd-investment campaigns from April 2020-September 2021. The journalist in her plea had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad courtroom docket to listen the remember, given that the cash this is being labelled as “proceeds of crime” have been accumulated withinside the HDFC Bank department at Navi Mumbai. Ayyub had argued that no a part of the transaction had taken region in Ghaziabad.

“The problem of territorial jurisdiction can not be determined in a writ petition, specifically whilst there may be a critical genuine dispute approximately the region/locations of fee of the offence. Hence, this query need to be raised via way of means of the petitioner earlier than the Special Court, given that a solution to the identical could depend on proof as to the locations in which anyone or extra of the strategies or sports noted in Section three have been carried out. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to elevate the difficulty of territorial jurisdiction earlier than the Trial Court, this writ petition is disregarded,” the SC bench dominated on Tuesday. The bench headed via way of means of Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala in its order stated that the difficulty of territorial jurisdiction could want exam of the information as a part of the trial.

“The different activity, namely, acquisition of the proceeds of crime (in the event that they in reality are), has taken region withinside the digital mode with human beings from exceptional elements of the country/international shifting cash on-line. If acquisition has taken region withinside the actual bodily international, the problem with recognize to the query of jurisdiction could had been lesser. Since acquisition has taken region withinside the digital international, the locations from in which on-line transfers of cash passed off are acknowledged most effective to the petitioner or possibly their bankers…,” the bench stated.

“Therefore, the query of territorial jurisdiction in this example calls for an inquiry right into a query of truth as to the region in which the alleged proceeds of crime have been (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used. This query of truth will without a doubt depend on the proof that unfolds earlier than the Trial Court,” the bench stated.

The courtroom docket has additionally held that the trial of a PMLA case could be earlier than the courtroom docket in which the prosecution criticism has been filed via way of means of the ED.

“In view of the unique mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section 44, it’s miles the Special Court constituted below the PMLA that might have jurisdiction to strive even the scheduled offence. Even if the scheduled offence is taken recognition of via way of means of some other Court, that Court shall dedicate the identical, on an utility via way of means of the involved authority, to the Special Court which has taken recognition of the offence of cash-laundering. This solutions the primary query posed earlier than us,” the courtroom docket held. “The query of territorial jurisdiction in crook instances revolves around,

(i) region of fee of the offence; or

(ii) region in which the outcome of an act, each of which represent an offence, ensues;

(iii) region in which the accused changed into found; or

(iv ) region in which the sufferer changed into found; or

(v) region in which the assets in recognize of which the offence changed into committed, changed into found; or

(vi) region in which the assets forming the subject-remember of an offence changed into required to be again or accounted for, etc., in accordance because the case might also additionally be…,” the courtroom docket said.