KHILJI MOHSINAHMED MUSTAKALI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR
Bail Rejection in Money Laundering Case: Deception in Opening Shell Company Accounts Constitutes Scheduled Offence; Funds Withdrawn Deemed "Proceeds of Crime" under PMLA.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53657
Decision Date: 05-12-2025
List of Laws
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to Section 464); The Public Gambling Act, 1867; The Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887; The Constitution of India; The Information Technology Act, 2000; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
- Facts: Khilji Mohsinahmed Mustakali applied for bail after his application was rejected by the trial court. The case involves allegations of offenses under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The allegations stem from an ECIR (No.ECIR/MBZO-II/20/2024) related to the establishment of shell entities and money laundering activities. The FIR (No.295 of 2024) was registered based on a complaint that individuals were deceived into providing their documents under the false promise of employment, which were then used to open bank accounts for shell companies. These accounts were used for financial transactions involving large sums of money.
- Procedural Posture: This is a criminal bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, appealing the rejection of bail by the trial court.
- Issue: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the allegations of offenses under the BNSS and PMLA, specifically concerning the establishment of shell companies, cheating, forgery, and money laundering activities. The core issue revolves around whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant for the alleged offenses and whether the money withdrawn from the shell companies constitutes "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA.
- Holding: The bail application is rejected.
- Reasoning: The Court found that there is a strong case against the applicant for committing the alleged offenses. The Court reasoned that the applicant and his co-accused deceived individuals into providing their documents, which were then used to open bank accounts for shell companies. The money deposited in these accounts was allegedly generated through illegal business and online gambling/betting. The Court determined that the applicant knowingly participated in criminal activities to launder money for pecuniary benefit. The Court held that the money withdrawn from the shell companies constitutes "proceeds of crime" as defined in Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The court emphasized that the core of the criminal scheme involved cheating and forgery, which are scheduled offenses, and that the money withdrawn was falsely projected as proceeds of genuine trading/business. The court also considered the possibility of the applicant causing disappearance of evidence and committing further offenses while on bail.
🔒 For Members Only