To constitute cheating, the deception must be done with a dishonest or fraudulent intent
Hon. Kerala High Court allowed the concession of regular bail to Thomas Daniel in a money-laundering case arising out of ECIR/KCZO/32/2020 which was based on the predicate offence of cheating the depositors by way of collecting fixed deposits without authority, after promising to pay interest, and having failed to pay either the interest or repay the amounts collected and thereby committing the offence of breach of trust and cheating.
The following are some of the factors which weighed with the High Court in granting bail for the offence of money laundering:
-
Though registration of an FIR by itself is sufficient to attract the offence of PMLA, the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, has held that if the predicate offences are quashed, or the accused is discharged, or the predicate offence is not made out, the offence under the PML Act will not lie.
-
To constitute cheating, the deception must be done with a dishonest or fraudulent intent. Further, it must be evident that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intentions when making the promise or the representation. Merely because there was a failure to keep a promise subsequently, culpability in the intention cannot be presumed to exist from the beginning.
(Thomas Daniel vs. Enforcement Directorate & Ors. BAIL APPL. NO. 5921 OF 2022 decided on 14.09.2023)