Delhi court dismisses money laundering case against Ratul Puri, Moser Baer and 11 others

New Delhi [India], July 25 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court has dismissed a money laundering case against businessman Ratul Puri, Moser Baer India Limited, and 11 other accused persons, following their discharge in the main case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Special Judge (CBI) Sushant Changotra on Thursday dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's complaint against Moser Baer India Limited, Ratul Puri, Rajiv Agarwal, Rajiv Saksena, Shivani Saksena, Ajit Singh Bubber, M/S Tanay Holding Ltd., M/S Matrix Group Limited, M/S Pacific International FZC, M/S Tiramisu Holdings INC, M/S Midas Metals International LLC, M/S Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt Ltd. And M/S Hindustan Power Projects Pvt Ltd.
Special Judge stated, "Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts and settled proportion of law, I am of the considered opinion that the offence under section 3 read with section 70 and punishable under section 4 of PMLA does not survive."
" Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed. The proceedings of this complaint case stand closed," Special Judge Changotra ordered on July 24.
However, the court added that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) would be at liberty to reopen proceedings if the discharge order dated May 24, 2025, is set aside by a higher court.
The present complaint case arose out of a predicate offence registered by the CBI vs. M/s Moser Baer India Ltd. & Ors under section 120-B, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Advocate Vijay Agarwal, appearing for Ratul Puri, argued that under Section 3 of the PMLA, the existence of "proceeds of crime" is a sine qua non (an essential condition) for prosecuting a money laundering offence. Since the Special CBI Court had already discharged all accused on May 24, 2025, the money laundering charges could not stand.
The court also considered the ED's arguments that the discharge order was not final until appeal, and references to the Supreme Court's pending review in ED vs. Gagandeep Singh, but held that such contentions had been exhaustively dealt with by the Delhi High Court. (ANI)