<p>That works to a mind-boggling Rs 13,75,000 crore a year, just a tad less than the country’s defence budget for 2009-10, Rs 1,41,700 crore. <br /><br />His “inability” to explain the exact source of the enormous income, besides other factors, had gone against him before the Supreme Court which last week cancelled the bail granted to him by the Bombay High Court.<br /><br />Several huge monetary transactions, including a deposit of $700,000 in the London’s Barclays Bank and receipt of $30,000 as commission for sale of the jewellery of the Nizam of Hyderabad and operating accounts in various foreign banks, were taken into consideration by the apex court.<br /><br />“We cannot also ignore the fact that the total income of the Respondent No 1 (Khan) for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 has been assessed at Rs 110,412,68,85,303/- by the I-T Department and in terms of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, he had not been able to establish that the same were neither the proceeds of crime nor untainted property,” a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and S S Nijjar said. <br /><br />Khan is also alleged to have dealt in huge sums of money, operating bank accounts in Switzerland, UK and Indonesia as his account with the Union Bank of Switzerland showed $80,004,53,000, or approximately Rs 36,000 crores.<br /><br />Khan, accused of maintaining relations with International arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, failed to prove that the money in his various accounts were not the proceeds of crime as mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.<br /><br />In its detailed verdict released later, the apex court said: “There is no attempt on the part of Khan to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him”. </p>.<p>It had on September 30 quashed the order passed by the HC on August 12 allowing bail to Khan. <br /><br />The High Court had granted him relief noting that the allegation of having three passports by him could not be linked to his operation of foreign bank accounts.<br /><br />But the apex court said, “the manner in which he had procured three different passports in his name, after his original passport was directed to be deposited, lends support to the apprehension that, if released on bail, he may abscond.”<br /><br />The Enforcement Department had arrested Khan on March 7, but the Mumbai’s special court granted him bail on March 11, saying that it did not have sufficient evidence to charge him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, the apex court had on March 17 set aside the special court’s order terming it as “extraordinary”.</p>
<p>That works to a mind-boggling Rs 13,75,000 crore a year, just a tad less than the country’s defence budget for 2009-10, Rs 1,41,700 crore. <br /><br />His “inability” to explain the exact source of the enormous income, besides other factors, had gone against him before the Supreme Court which last week cancelled the bail granted to him by the Bombay High Court.<br /><br />Several huge monetary transactions, including a deposit of $700,000 in the London’s Barclays Bank and receipt of $30,000 as commission for sale of the jewellery of the Nizam of Hyderabad and operating accounts in various foreign banks, were taken into consideration by the apex court.<br /><br />“We cannot also ignore the fact that the total income of the Respondent No 1 (Khan) for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 has been assessed at Rs 110,412,68,85,303/- by the I-T Department and in terms of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, he had not been able to establish that the same were neither the proceeds of crime nor untainted property,” a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and S S Nijjar said. <br /><br />Khan is also alleged to have dealt in huge sums of money, operating bank accounts in Switzerland, UK and Indonesia as his account with the Union Bank of Switzerland showed $80,004,53,000, or approximately Rs 36,000 crores.<br /><br />Khan, accused of maintaining relations with International arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, failed to prove that the money in his various accounts were not the proceeds of crime as mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.<br /><br />In its detailed verdict released later, the apex court said: “There is no attempt on the part of Khan to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him”. </p>.<p>It had on September 30 quashed the order passed by the HC on August 12 allowing bail to Khan. <br /><br />The High Court had granted him relief noting that the allegation of having three passports by him could not be linked to his operation of foreign bank accounts.<br /><br />But the apex court said, “the manner in which he had procured three different passports in his name, after his original passport was directed to be deposited, lends support to the apprehension that, if released on bail, he may abscond.”<br /><br />The Enforcement Department had arrested Khan on March 7, but the Mumbai’s special court granted him bail on March 11, saying that it did not have sufficient evidence to charge him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, the apex court had on March 17 set aside the special court’s order terming it as “extraordinary”.</p>
