Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 102 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - Money laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - attachment of the property - HELD THAT - Against the alleged proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.10,15,94,961/- properties valued at Rs.4,21,85,018 have been identified and have been provisionally attached vide PAO No.09/2018 dated 31.03.2018. A complaint under section 5(5) of PMLA 2002 vide O.C. No.947/2018 dated 23.04.2018 was filed before the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority under PMLA for confirmation of the provisional attachment order and Authority under PMLA confirmed the provisional Attachment order No.09/2018 vide order dated 05.09.2018 considering the fact that the petitioner has committed the scheduled offence, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them - Hence the property in the name of Neelam Devi, w/o Dinesh Prasad Gupta has rightly been identified for attachment. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is pertinent that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he purchased the said land from own money - Petitioner along with his partner i.e. other accused persons are involved in concealment, possession, acquisition and using properties acquired out of proceeds of crime and projecting the same as untainted, as such, the privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Application dismissed.
Issues:
Apprehension of arrest in connection with a special trial under PMLA, Cognizance taken against the petitioner under P.M.L. Act, Allegations of misappropriation and cheating, Petitioner's defense of false implication and lack of offense under PMLA, Enforcement Directorate's opposition to bail, Allegations of deliberate non-cooperation and money laundering, Legal interpretation of P.M.L. Act provisions, Attachment of properties and provisional orders, Rejection of anticipatory bail. Analysis: The judgment involves the petitioner's apprehension of arrest in connection with a special trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the cognizance taken against the petitioner under the P.M.L. Act based on allegations of misappropriation and cheating. The prosecution case revolves around the petitioner's alleged involvement in misappropriating a significant quantity of rice, leading to a loss to the State exchequer. Charge sheets were filed against the petitioner and others for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that he was falsely implicated and did not commit the alleged offenses under the IPC and PMLA. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, emphasizing that the petitioner fulfilled his obligations as per the agreement with the Bihar State Food and Supplies Corporation. The petitioner's defense also focused on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of money laundering and acquisition of assets through illegal means. On the contrary, the Enforcement Directorate opposed the petitioner's bail, citing non-cooperation during the investigation, deliberate failure to provide essential documents, and allegations of money laundering. The Directorate presented evidence of properties acquired by the petitioner and his wife, allegedly with proceeds of crime, leading to provisional attachment orders and legal action under the PMLA. The judgment delves into the legal interpretation of P.M.L. Act provisions, burden of proof, and precedents from other High Courts regarding the liability of individuals involved in concealing or using proceeds of crime. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including statements, agreements, and financial records, to determine the petitioner's involvement in money laundering activities. Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, citing the involvement of the petitioner and other accused in concealing, possessing, and using properties acquired from proceeds of crime. The judgment upholds the provisional attachment orders and emphasizes the importance of demonstrating the legitimate sources of acquired assets to avoid implications of money laundering.
|