Supreme Court reserves order in plea by Rana Ayyub against Ghaziabad Court hearing PMLA case against her

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order in journalist Rana Ayyub's plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court which commenced proceedings against her in a Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) case [Rana Ayyub vs Directorate of Enforcement]..A bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala reserved the order after arguments were concluded today..Ayyub was summoned by a trial court in Ghaziabad in relation to a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).On November 29, Special Judge Vatsal Srivastava had held that on going through the entire record, there was sufficient evidence of a prima facie case for taking cognisance against her.Ayyub moved the apex court contending that the UP court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter since the complaint arose in Mumbai and the Delhi Zonal Office of ED was investigating the matter. The Supreme Court gad on Wednesday ordered the special court in Ghaziabad to defer the hearing in the money-laundering case to any day after January 31.The ED had initiated a money laundering investigation on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) registered in September 2021 by the Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Amendment Act and Black Money Act against Ayyub.The FIR alleged that she illegally acquired funds from the general public in the name of charity by launching fundraiser campaigns on online crowd funding platform Ketto.It was also alleged that Ayyub received foreign contributions without registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).According to the ED, investigation revealed that Ayyub launched three fundraiser campaigns and collected funds totalling ₹2.69 crore.These included:1. Raising funds for slum-dwellers & farmers;2. Funds for relief work for Assam, Bihar and Maharashtra;3. Funds to help those impacted by COVID-19 in India.The ED stated that the funds raised were received in her father and sister's accounts, and were subsequently transferred to her personal accounts. Further, she allegedly utilised these funds to create a fixed deposit of ₹50 lakh for herself and transferred another ₹50 lakh to a new bank account.The investigation was also stated to have revealed that only about ₹29 lakh was used for relief work. Subsequently, a bank balance of ₹1.7 crore was attached by the agency on February 4, 2022.In April 2022, the High Court had allowed Ayyub to travel abroad after the ED prevented her from leaving the country by issuing a Look Out Circular (LOC) in relation to this case.In August that year, the Delhi High Court had restrained the ED from taking any further steps against Ayyub under Section 8 of the PMLA in relation to these properties attached by the investigating agency..Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Ayyub, told the Supreme Court that the Ghaziabad court hearing the matter is an abuse of process."No one complains of cheating against me but I am facing a money laundering charge under PMLA. Investigation was also transferred from Delhi zonal office.. but Supreme Court verdict clarifies that only court which has jurisdiction is the court in Navi Mumbai, if at all," she said.She elaborated that the offence of money laundering as per ED took place through online platform and money was deposited in Ayyub's Mumbai bank branch. "Scheduled offence is registered in Ghaziabad..no chargesheet since 16 months," she said.She also questioned the locus of the complainant."The complainant, Hindu IT Cell founder was not allegedly cheated by me or duped by me, He is the not one who is affected at all. Targeting others is being done which is happening in this case perhaps," Grover contended.Regarding the jurisdiction, she further said,"There was a provisional attachment of 1 crore of my HDFC bank account. Most of the scheduled offences are not triable by magistrate but by the sessions court. It is the special court where offence of money laundering has taken place which has the jurisdiction," she added..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stressed that the scheme of the PMLA Act is not such that if a person choses to launder money in Singapore, then only Singapore court will have jurisdiction and ED has to go there."After a detailed probe it was found that Ketto platform is a crowdfunding platform. Here it was slum dwellers, Assam, and COVID.. The first funding resulted in ₹1 crores and ₹50 lakh FD was done in personal account and said fund is over. People from Ghaziabad and UP also contributed money," he said..He also alleged that money was shown by fake bills, groceries etc and it was laundered on personal luxury items and consumption. "Several deposits in Ketto was by UP and Ghaziabad and thus part cause of action lies in Ghaziabad," argued SG Mehta.The SG said that case has to be registered where predicate offence happened."We have to follow where a complaint is filed.. irrespective of the FIR. Part of cause of action has arisen here since people from UP and Ghaziabad donated. This has to stop," he said.Regarding the complainant's credentials, the SG said,"Complainant may be a loud mouth person and he may himself be a money launderer but we are not looking at complainant. We have to see the issue. Here money was also used for travel and joy. Criminal law can be set into motion by anybody. CrPC also applies. Part of cause of action theory applies.. Section 65 CrPC is also applicable here," Mehta said..The Court then proceeded to reserve its verdict.