Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1076 - ATPMLAPrevention of Money Laundering - determinative factors on the basis of which it can be said that whether any person or any property is involved in money laundering - Held that:- The Adjudicating Authority did not mention any reason as to why while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2016, selective approach was adopted in considering and discussing the grounds submitted by the appellant in its written reply dated 11.01.2016 and on what basis the 14 ground. The said biased approach has caused severe prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Adjudicating Authority despite submissions of documentary evidence by the appellant that the respondent had misrepresented the facts and had distorted the same in the Original Complaint for prejudicing the mind of the Adj. Authority accepted the same distorted version as the “Facts & circumstance of the case” in the impugned order. It is evident from the record that the appellant had been following the international standards and norms of collection and distribution of royalty. The amounts of the royalty collected and pending distribution could in no manner be construed as proceeds of cheating. The appellant had been filing all the statutory returns under the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act on time and never ever an iota of suspicion has ever been raised by any of the Statutory Authority in respect of the working of the Appellant or with regard to its financial statements and returns. The balance amount of royalty lying in the investment portfolios in the name of Appellant can in no way be construed as ‘proceeds of crime’ and can be liable for provisional attachment or for any other purpose under the provisions of PMLA, 2002. If for the sake of arguments if it was assumed that that royalty collected was ‘proceeds of crime’ then the amount which has been distributed also will amount to proceeds of crime and all those who have received the same will have to be booked for offence for money laundering along with the persons from whom the said sums of royalty had been collected. That the contention of the respondent that the royalties so collected in legal and lawful manner were ‘proceeds of crime’ was grossly wrong, baseless and without any logic. The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Notice of Motion wherein it had been held that the operations of the appellant are lawful and legitimate. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by Adjudicating Authority in confirmation being not sustainable, is liable to be set-aside as the same was passed contrary to facts and against the law. We may clarify here that during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has confirmed to us to pay the Royalty to the unpaid Artist without any condition as per law. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that unpaid artists will also be entitled to claim the interest on the amount of Royalty.
|