ED Challenges Delhi Court's Verdict in Amanatullah Khan Money Laundering Case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has contested a Delhi trial court's ruling in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case involving AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan. The court ordered Khan's release, citing procedural shortcomings. Delhi High Court is reviewing the case for clarity on predicate offenses under PMLA provisions.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Delhi High Court to contest a trial court's dismissal of its supplementary chargesheet in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The trial court had commanded the immediate release of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan, highlighting the absence of necessary procedural sanctions.

During the hearings, the Delhi High Court demanded that the ED provide clarity on its stance regarding the predicate offense and the related sanctions in compliance with PMLA regulations. The court has scheduled a detailed hearing for January 13, 2024, while deciding not to issue further notices at this stage.

Moreover, the court directed the ED to submit records of the trial court's orders concerning the chargesheet. The ED contended that the trial court improperly released Khan, disregarding the comprehensive prerequisites of the PMLA, notably Section 45 concerning bail stipulations.

The ED noted the trial court bypassed examining the charges during a bail hearing, choosing instead to free Khan without evaluating the merit of the accusations or the presence of required sanctions. On November 14, the trial court rejected acknowledgment of the supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED and commanded Khan's immediate release from custody.

The ED submitted the supplementary chargesheet on October 29, accusing Khan of laundering money generated from corrupt practices within the Delhi Waqf Board. The trial court acknowledged sufficient evidence against Khan but cited a lack of prosecutorial sanction.

The case accuses Khan of illicit recruitments during his tenure as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, violating established guidelines. The ED alleges these actions yielded substantial illicit gains, subsequently invested in assets acquired under his associates' names.

(With inputs from agencies.)