If Manish Sisodia is not part of excise scam money trail, PMLA won’t stand: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Enforcement Directorate on how Manish Sisodia, senior AAP leader and former Delhi deputy CM, could be implicated for money laundering in the liquor policy case if he was not part of the money trail and money did not reach his “pocket”. It also clarified that it’s query to the ED on Wednesday on why AAP was not made an accused was not to implicate the party but to seek the agency’s response.
After going through the money trail as placed by the ED, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti asked additional solicitor general S V Raju, “Manish Sisodia is not involved in all this.Vijay Nair (a close aide of CM Arvind Kejriwal who looked after AAP’s publicity wing) is there but Manish Sisodia is not there in this part. How will you bring him inPMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)? Money did not come to his pocket but someone’s else. In case it is a company with whom he is involved, then we have vicarious liability. Otherwise, the prosecution falters. Money laundering is an entirely different offence.”

The bench said as per the ED’s submission, Sisodia never got possession of the money which was acquired and used by someone else and it was essential to connect a person with the proceeds of crime under PMLA.

Responding to the court’s query, ASG Raju said Sisodia was instrumental in generating the money which was done by changing the excise policy to favour select liquor groups who paid bribes.
But the bench referred to Section 3 of the PMLA and said the Act does not recognise “generation” of money as an offence. “Generation of money has not been made an offence under Section 3. It is an offence under Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act. In case of bribery or kidnapping, generation of money is itself an offence but not under PMLA. Perhaps there is a flaw in the Act. PMLA will be triggered after proceeds of crime are given or paid. You have to connect the person concerned with the proceeds of crimes, directly or indirectly,” the bench said.
Raju said Sisodia did not directly use the money but handled it indirectly as money went to his party, which used it for elections.
The bench also observed that mere involvement of people who lobbied for change in the liquor policy was not sufficient and the agencies – CBI and ED-had to prove that bribes were involved in order to make it an offence.
“When there is a policy change, everybody wants a change that will be beneficial for them. That will be there. There will always be lobbies and groups with vested interests. But it is the money part which would make it an offence,” the bench said. The hearing on Sisodia’s bail plea remained inconclusive and will resume on October 12.