A special court that granted bail to actor and businessman Sachin Joshi arrested last year in a money laundering case concerning Yes Bank - Omkar Group of companies has said in its detailed order that while there are some business transactions between Joshi and Omkar Group, these have absolutely no nexus with the Rs. 410 Crores that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) claims to be proceeds of crime that he helped launder.
The agency had claimed that the group had laundered the money and not used it for the purpose it was sanctioned for - redevelopment of a project. Joshi’s company had received a part of the amount and helped the group launder it, it claimed.
The court noted that Joshi has not received a single penny from the group’s Yes Bank account. It said there is absolutely nothing before the court to point out the money trail or layering and therefore, it prima facie appears that he is not directly or indirectly involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime. It also stated that though Joshi’s are ‘paper companies’, it does not appear to be prima facie probable.
It was Joshi’s claim through his advocates Aabad Ponda and Subhash Jadhav that he had been paid the amount he received from Omkar group for using his brand name to evict slum dwellers for a redevelopment project.
Special Judge MG Deshpande accepted the submission and said it appears that Joshi has a peculiar brand value in respect of the real estate business as he is a known film star and has been involved in the real estate business in Mumbai, Goa, Pune and Jaipur for the past 15 years and successfully completed a large number of them including four and five-star hotels.
The court said it is ‘astonishing’ that many amounts mentioned by the ED in its charge sheet relate to a period prior to the loan disbursed to Omkar Group by Yes Bank. The loan was disbursed in August 2016 and the agency had shown suspicious transactions to Joshi from Omkar group in April that year.
“It is necessary to note such entries to understand how the ED has put forward its case by mingling various amounts claiming them to be proceeds of crime when proceeds of crime were not even conceived,” it stated.
