Singhvi highlighted the disproportionate nature of the money laundering charges compared to the predicate offense, suggesting that the case did not meet the threshold required for a money laundering investigation. He argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should not exceed the scope of the predicate offense, which was a disproportionate assets case.
In response to Justice Trivedi’s inquiry about the independence of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from the anchor offense, Singhvi clarified that the PMLA should be constrained by the parameters set by the predicate offense. He contended that attempting to convert the case into one of disproportionate assets was inappropriate, especially considering the methodology used to calculate expenditures and income.
Singhvi further critiqued the statements relied upon by the ED, suggesting that some were obtained through leading questions and others appeared to be scripted. He specifically scrutinized the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Jain’s chartered accountant, arguing that it failed to establish any credible links between Jain and the alleged money laundering activities.
Ultimately, Singhvi urged the court to grant bail to Satyendar Jain, reiterating that the accusations against him lacked substance and credible evidence.
