A special PMLA court on Monday refused to discharge Kritika Dahal, 40, owner of International Rising, a Hong Kong-based company, in a case of money laundering to the tune of Rs1,478 crore.
As per the case registered with NM Joshi Marg police station, in July 2014 one Ritesh Jain purchased Rajeshwar Exports, which deals with diamonds and jewellery, and appointed Sujata Khagra and Prashant Pawar as directors. The company is also engaged in import of articles at its Special Economic Zone, Surat, unit.
On January 3, 2017, three live import consignments of Rajeshwar Exports sent by International Rising were intercepted at SEZ Surat. The declared value of the consignment was Rs15.95 crore. However, as per the government-approved valuer, the real value of the consignment came to Rs1.64 crore.
The Enforcement Directorate investigation revealed that the outward remittance of Rs746.42 crores from Rajeshwar Exports was made to International Rising against the alleged import of diamonds / golds that were overvalued.
While seeking discharge, Dahal claimed that although she was shown to hold 99.99% shares of International Rising, she was a dummy director who was doing her work in good faith and was not involved in any kind of criminal conspiracy. She claimed that the company of the applicant used to export diamonds / jewellery bought in Hong Kong to Rajeshwar Exports. The valuation was done on the instructions of Jain. It was further contended that there was no import activity of International Rising and Jain was always in-charge of all procurement and valuation affairs.
The ED’s prosecutor, RR Yadav, however, contended that Dahal in her statement has admitted that she had travelled about seven times to Hong Kong since May 2015 and had managed the affairs of International Rising. It was further pleaded that an amount of Rs746.42 crore was parked in the accounts of International Rising in the guise of payment of import.
The court after hearing both the side observed: “If at all there was no role of the applicant in managing the affairs of the company at Hong Kong, then a question arises as to what she was doing particularly when she was aware of the fact that the valuation of export consignment was highly overvalued and the amount was being credited to the account of the company from India. Keeping quiet without taking any action against the known illegal activities, itself goes to reflect that there was consent and involvement of the applicant in the activities of her company.”
“Whole intention of infringing the valuation of the consignment is to transfer the amount which has been generated out of criminal activities as has been alleged in the subject FIR. This fact itself amounts to placement and layering on the proceeds of crime,” the court further said.
