Delhi High Court: Bail Granted To Preeti Chandra In Money Laundering Case, Stated Order Be Not Given Effect Till June 16 After The Request Of ED

The Delhi High Court in the case Preeti Chandra v. ED observed and has granted bail to Preeti Chandra, the wife of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra in the money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that the request made by the Enforcement Directorate that the said order be not given any effect to till Friday. The counsel appearing for Enforcement Directorate, Zoheb Hossain requested that the order may not be given effect to till June 16 as the agency has to challenge the same.
Adding to it, Hossain stated that the appeal will become infructuous.
The court in the case stated that Mr. Zoheb Hossain appearing for ED stated that the order pronounced may not be given effect to up to Friday. Thus, the said order may not be given effect ti;; June 16, 2023.
Therefore, the Trial Court in November, last year denied the bail to Chandra while taking the note of the enormity of transactions and seriousness of the allegations.
In the present case, the money laundering case was filed after the FIRs were filed by Delhi Police and Central Bureau of Investigation on the basis of complaints from homebuyers against the Unitech Group and also its promoters.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act case in the year 2021 was filed by the ED against the Unitech Group and its promoters over allegations that the owners namely Sanjay and Ajay Chandra illegally diverted more than Rs. 2,000 crore to Cyprus and the Cayman Islands. Thus, the ED filed the chargesheet in the case.
It has also been alleged by the probe agency that the funds collected from homebuyers for housing projects were not utilised for the intended purpose and that the accused persons committed money laundering.
It has also been alleged by the ED in the case that Preeti Chandra received proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 107 crores in her company ‘Prakausli Investments Private Limited’ but it did not disclose the ultimate usage of the amount in question.