The Delhi High Court while denying relief to the accused of Money Laundering held that where the investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed, superior courts should not reopen the investigation.
In a legal proceeding in Switzerland against accused Claudio De Simone of money laundering, he filed a memo of defense dated 14.05.2020 along with a letter of his Italian lawyer, Mr.Stefano Bagianti asserted he had visited India between July, 24 to 26, 2019, and met four police officials in various capacities, in charge of this investigation and during a plenary meeting on July 25, 2019, was provided direct access to the entire case file.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that a deep-rooted nexus is apparent between the accused and the State machinery and therefore this Court should order for a transfer of investigation from Delhi Police to CBI and/or the Crime Branch.
It was further argued the main accused Claudio De Simone was never summoned despite there being an FIR against him and yet a closure report is filed without his summoning, which is never heard of.
It was urged by the petitioner that, he is entitled to a fair investigation and considering the fact in July, 2019 i.e. eight months prior to the preparation of the closure report, the police officials having assured the lawyer of accused Claudio, they are going to file a closure and he being given access to the case diary, was nothing but illegal.
The petitioner did not argue on merits but did based his case upon four prime contentions namely accused Claudio was never summoned; case files having been shown to a lawyer; substantial assets and the business of the petitioner company being transferred by the accused persons in their new company named as M/s NextGen without seeking permission from the petitioner company or without any Board resolution or a special resolution.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna without ordering re-investigation said that in order to ensure fairness, the Special Commissioner (EOW) must examine the effect of four prime contentions of the petitioner and, then to file an additional report before the Trial Court, preferably, within four months.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
