Former Delhi Jal Board Officials Slammed with 3-Year Prison Sentence in Money Laundering Scandal

This case was heard by a special judge named Ashwani Kumar Sarpal against the two suspects, who were imprisoned for four and five years by the CBI court in 2012. The reason for their sentence was heisting of almost 47.76 INR from the DIB against whom the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in 2009.

2 former Delhi Jal Board officials sent to 3 years in jail in money laundering case https://t.co/SeSoaE58Xn

— TOI Delhi (@TOIDelhi) March 19, 2023

However, the Anti-Money Laundering agency reported a complaint in March 2021 in the current court hearing which was delayed for more than 11 years and four years after the charge was completed.

According to the special judge Ashwani, the accused persons have been found guilty after realising that they have no defence in the current money laundering case after committing schedules violations by the CBI court which was backed by the Supreme Court.

Yet, they have already experienced imprisonment for four and five years in 2012 because of the scheduled violations as well as misappropriation and other cases. Therefore, their money laundering case was taken as a lenient view in which both persons underwent a strict sentence for three years and were also subjected to pay a fine of 5,000 INR each.

For this case, a special Public Prosecutor, Atul Tripathi, appeared for the Enforcement Directator, and observed the case of the accused persons. He analysed several factors such as having a low salary, family responsibility, losing of government employment, and being rehabilitated after the imprisonment, the judge made a decision that the accused might have conducted a crime for some genuine reasons, but the court is subjected to impose any sentence, which cannot be lesser than three years.

In addition, the judge also observed that as per the relevant standards of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the minimum penalty for money launderers was three years, that’s why this case was taken as a very lenient view. Due to this law, the accused is unable to get any benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The judge also said that this case can be related to other CBI cases which involved violations of cheating, money heisting, criminal misconduct of the public employee, and money laundering. Thus the court refused to adjust the accused with any award and delivered the matter to the CBI.