|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1549 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 582 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - existence of a predicate/ scheduled offence - sine qua non for proceeding upon the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Act - accused discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offences - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has already settled the controversy that if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offences or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
The impugned order dated 10.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in Special Case No. 47/2015 is set-aside and the present petitioner be discharged from the charges framed under PMLA and all further proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner.
Criminal revision allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 564 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment order - whether the appeal filed by the appellant only impugns the order confirming the provisional attachment and did not impugn the order rejecting the application filed before the Adjudicating Authority for non-supply of certain documents and non-supply of legible copies of certain Relied Upon Documents - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the prayer paragraph of the appeal shows that the appellant has not only impugned the order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure A1 to the appeal before the Tribunal) whereby the provisional attachment order was confirmed, but has also impugned all proceedings prior thereto including the detailed order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure A-11 to the appeal before the Tribunal).
Clearly, the Tribunal has erred in not noticing that the appellant has not only impugned the order of confirmation of provisional attachment, but also the order whereby the application of the appellant seeking copies of the Relied Upon Documents was rejected. On that ground, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and calls for a remit.
The order dated 14.12.2023 is set aside. The application of the appellant for supply of documents is restored to its original number on the records of the Appellate Tribunal - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 409 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking for transfer of investigation of Case - money laundering case involving public distribution system scam in which a cabinet Minister of the State of West Bengal was arrested - Whether the facts and circumstances in the case on hand would fall within the parameters as mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF WB. & ORS. VERSUS COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS WB. & ORS. [2010 (2) TMI 1118 - SUPREME COURT]? - whether ED was justified in seeking for transfer of the cases to CBI? - whether the State of West Bengal was justified in seeking to set aside the constitution of SIT and allow them to retain the powers to investigate those cases and proceed further?
HELD THAT:- Merely because ED had not sought for transfer of the predicate offence to CBI would not disentitle them to seek for a transfer of the three cases to an independent agency. It is not in dispute that the case investigated by ED involves a sitting Minister of the West Bengal Government, the person whose premises were to be searched namely, Shahjahan is a very influential person in the ruling party and has been on the run for over 50 days and apprehended only on 29th February, 2024. Above all, the circumstances under which FIR No. 7 of 2024 which was registered by the Inspector-in-charge, Nazat Police Station is clouded with suspicion for more than one reason.
In Paragraph 13 and 14 of the interim order dated 11th January, 2024, the learned Single Bench has recorded a finding that an officer-in-charge who has registered an FIR had signed it at 10:30 A.M. in the morning on the complaint of the security guard of Shahjahan could not have signed another FIR on the same day based on a complaint of a Sub-Inspector of Police (Suo Moto). Therefore, the Court observed that there was a clear inconsistency between the two FIRs which disclose completely different version of the incident and the Court’s mind is not free from doubt that FIR No. 7 of 2024 may have been pre-timed based on a procured complaint to show prior FIR on the same day against the officials of ED and therefore, the allegations made by ED cannot be brushed aside. It is no doubt true that the order passed in CRR 164 of 2024 dated 11.01.2024 is only an interim order.
The case which has been registered by ED, investigating into the public distribution system scam involves highly politically powerful persons which include the accused Shahjahan. Thus, what is required, is a fair, honest and complete investigation and this alone will retain the public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. There are no hesitation to hold that this confidence has been shaken and there can be no better case than the case on hand which requires to be transferred to be investigated by CBI. It is a pitiable state of affairs when we hear the allegation made by ED that they were not even given the copy of the FIR registered based on their complaint in FIR No. 9 of 2024 and they were able to secure a certified copy only after they file the writ petition.
The accused who has been apprehended on 29th February, 2024 after being on the run for more than 50 days is not an ordinary citizen. He is an elected representative of the public, holding the highest office in a Zilla Parishad, he was fielded as the candidate at the elections held for the said post by the political party which is ruling dispensation. Thus, it has become imperative and absolutely necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights of the public in general and the public of the locality that the cases be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation and to proceed further.
The order passed by the learned Single Bench constituting the Special Investigating Team is set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 358 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Default bail - case of petitioner is that on the date of filing of the prosecution complaint, the investigation was incomplete - complaint was not accompanied by the FSL report - ED after filing of the complaint has issued summon to one director of Supertech - HELD THAT:- The right to default bail has been recognised as a statutory right. This right accrues in favour of an accused, if the chargesheet or complaint as the case may be, is not filed within the stipulated period. The Courts have also in no uncertain terms held that filing of an incomplete chargesheet/complaint would not come in the way of this indefeasible right of the accused - In the present case indisputably, the respondent had filed its complaint within the period of 60 days. The application for default bail came to be filed approximately 30 days after filing of the complaint.
In the present case, the respondent has already submitted the requisite documents for obtaining expert opinion from FSL. Preparation of the FSL report is not in the control of investigating agency, though it can take steps for expediting the process - it is the categorical stand of the respondent that investigation against the present petitioner is complete. Mere issuance of summons to another person or seeking leave of the Court to file additional evidence, without there being any other sufficient material to challenge, the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to a default bail.
There are no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Petition for grant of Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - specific case of the respondent is that the petitioner in his official capacity as a Transport Minister of State of Tamil Nadu, conspired with his brother Ashok Kumar, Assistants - Shanmugam and Karthikeyan and officials/personal assistants of Transport Department and orchestrated a strategy to exchange cash for job selections under various categories in the Transport Department - HELD THAT:- The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire files should have been analysed and there is no question of selecting certain files and analysing the same. This Court is not able to agree with this submission. It is always left open to the prosecution agency to select the relevant files and seek for the analysis report. Hence, the investigation agency in the predicate offence thought it fit to select the relevant files numbering 284 and the same was analysed and a report was given by TNFSL.
In any case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the differences pointed out is as a result of manipulation. That would tantamount to an extreme presumption which is not warranted at this stage. It must be borne in mind that these materials and reports were collected by the investigation agency, who investigated the predicate offences and the respondent is merely relying upon the same in order to prosecute the petitioner for offence under Section 3 of PMLA. It is not necessary for the respondent to rely upon all the materials collected in the predicate offence and it is always left open to the respondent to select the relevant materials to make out a case under Section 3 of PMLA. The seized digital evidence is in the custody of the Special Court dealing with MP/MLA cases and what the respondent has done is that they have obtained a copy of the digital evidence in printout form which has been certified by the Court.
It must be borne in mind that this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial to test the probative value of the electronic record relied upon by the respondent. What is required is to see as to whether there is prima facie genuineness in the materials that are sought to be relied upon by the respondent. If on going through the materials, this Court is convinced that there is no doubt on the genuineness of the materials relied upon by the respondent, there is no question of doubting the probative value of those documents at the stage of dealing with the bail petition. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as if, 284 files had increased to 472 files and therefore, there is manipulation of pen drive, is totally unsustainable.
The file path has been explained at paragraph no.14.5.8 of the complaint and when this is read along with relied upon documents 28 to 33 filed along with the complaint, it becomes clear that the excel sheet is very much a part of CF-27/21. To add strength to the same, it is also seen that the relevant document has been certified by the Special Court and this document is a print out of what is contained in the file. These documents, prima facie establishes that the entire recruitment process in the Transport Corporation was manipulated by fixing specific rates for various posts and based on the payment of money, the marks were manipulated and the recruitment had taken place. It is seen that there was a large scale manipulation resorted to which has been explained at paragraph no.11 of the complaint and which shows that payments have been made by many job aspirants for jobs either directly or through the associates to B.Shanmugam and M.Karthikeyan, who were the unofficial personal assistants of the petitioner during the relevant point of time - If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the petitioner who was the then Transport Minister, that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently.
The next submission that was made was that most of the statements that were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are that of the co-accused or the suspects. There are only six independent witnesses available and none of them implicate the petitioner - The above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. As on date, the petitioner alone has been made as an accused and the complaint has been filed only as against the petitioner. None of the other persons from whom statements have been recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are shown as accused or suspects.
The petitioner resigned from the post of Minister without a portfolio just one day prior to the hearing of this bail petition. The fact that the petitioner continued to hold the position as a Minister for nearly eight months and that to without a portfolio when he was inside the jail, shows the tremendous influence of the petitioner and the importance that is given to him by the State Government. Even if the petitioner had resigned from his position as a Minister, he continues as a MLA belonging to the same party which is running the Government in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, without any hesitation, this Court holds that the petitioner continues to wield a lot of influence on the Government. When such is the position, the witnesses who are mostly the officials belonging to the MTC and the prospective job seekers who had paid the money, will be influenced/tampered with - This Court is also taking into consideration the larger interest of the Public/State since the petitioner was involved in a cash for job scam by misusing his position as a Transport Minister and thereby, genuine aspirants for the job were deprived of level playing field and in their place, persons who paid money were accommodated. In this process, the respondent has identified the proceeds of crime at Rs. 67.74 crores. If the petitioner is let out on bail in a case of this nature, it will send a wrong signal and it will be against larger public interest. Therefore, this Court holds that even under Section 439 Cr.PC, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for enlargement on bail.
This Court does not find any merits in this bail petition and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - proceeds of crime - provisional attachment of immovable properties appear to have been confirmed without any knowledge of the petitioner - alternative appellate remedy - HELD THAT:- Appeals under Section 26 of PMLA lie against " an order" of the Adjudicating Authority 'under this Act' - On a careful reading of Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and Rule 2 of the Rules of 2005, it is clear that any person aggrieved by the order, even if a person is not a party to the order can file an appeal u/s 26 of the PMLA, 2002 before the Appellate Tribunal.
Taking into consideration, the aforesaid provisions, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 355 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment of property - It is the specific case of the petitioner that the department instead of proceeding with Resurvey No.47/6A2, which stands in the name of the seventh respondent, has wrongly included Resurvey No.47/6B2 owned by the writ petitioner - HELD THAT:- The persons involved in the prize chits and money circulation were all arrayed as accused and on completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken on file by the respective Metropolitan Magistrate (Sub Sessions Court, Egmore, Chennai). After filing the final report, the Enforcement Directorate found that the offence alleged to have been committed also attracts the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA Act) and therefore, the case was registered under PMLA Act against the persons, who were managing M/s.Oakdale Properties Private Limited and its sister concerns. This case was taken on file in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court constituted under PMLA Act.
The Enforcement Directorate also thought fit to invoke the provisions of interim attachment as contemplated under the PMLA Act and the properties of Ms/Oakdale Properties Private Limited came to be attached. While so, the writ petitioner herein claiming that her property, which falls under Resurvey No. 47/6B2 had been wrongly attached. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the provisional attachment order dated 05.04.2017 and to correct the survey number in the impugned provisional attachment order.
As stated by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 since the entire proceedings initiated against the seventh respondent has been quashed, both predicate offence as well as the offence under PMLA Act, this Court is of the view that the relief as prayed for in the writ petition has become infructuous and the error of including the property of the petitioner in the attachment proceedings herein has to be rectified.
The sub registrar/sixth respondent is directed to delete any entry in respect of Resurvey No.47/6B2, which were made pursuant to the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Scheduled offences or not - attachment of properties - Court had quashed the entire complaint - HELD THAT:- Since the complaint itself is not maintainable, the respondent has no jurisdiction to attach the properties of the petitioners and therefore the order of attachment passed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 dated 30.09.2022 impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be quashed and hence, quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 188 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - reasons to believe - twin condition as available under Section 45 of PMLA - Principles of parity - cessation from the directorship from the above companies - beneficial ownership directly or indirectly through company - HELD THAT:- The “offence of money-laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering - It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] as under paragraph- 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
It is alleged that cessation of Dilip Kumar Ghosh from the directorship from the above companies of the Agarwal group was thoughtful move driven by a deliberate and the conspiracy between Amit Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Kumar Ghosh to project Dilip Kumar Ghosh as a separate and detached entity from the Agarwal group of companies and acquire the property in possession of defence Indirectly through Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. - it is evident that the email ids of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (a company which is owned by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, (brothers of Amit Kumar Agarwal) and SanayuktVanijyaPvt. Ltd has been used in the KYC of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which leads to the conclusion that M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Itd. is a company which is solely under the control of Amit Kumar Agarwal - It is, thus, evident on the basis of the aforesaid material collected that there is reason to believe of commission of offence said to be committed under the provisions of the Act, 2002.
Principles of parity - HELD THAT:- Law the well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied - It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 (11) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT] where it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. In has further been held in the said judgment that the principle of parity is to be applied in the matter of bail but equally it has been laid down therein that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper, then, merely because the co- accused person has been directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality.
This Court on the basis of the different role committed by Dilip Kumar Ghosh, the accused person who has been granted bail and comparing his accountability with the act of the present petitioner, is of the view that it cannot be said that what has been done by Dilip Kumar Ghosh is identical to the case of the present petitioner as it would be evident from the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs as also by going through the counter affidavit that the said company, i.e., M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. is completely under the control of Amit Kumar Agarwal - It is, thus, evident that so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. Even on the ground of parity, the same on the basis of the role/involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of crime in comparison to that of the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh is quite different.
This Court is of the view that the present application is fit to be dismissed - the instant application stands dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 133 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - money Laundering - Scheduled offence - opening of bank account by forging documents in the name of fictitious persons - scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002 - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner namely Tara Chand has created a fictitious person namely Sachin Gupta and also opened three bank accounts in the name of three proprietorship viz M/s Om Traders, M/s Shri Khatu Shyam Traders & M/s Anil Kumar Govind Ram, of this fictitious person Sachin Gupta by forged documents. He also opened one bank account in his real name. Further Tara Chand provided these four bank accounts to Neeraj Mittal (Accused no 7) for the purpose of laundering of Proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram. Same bank accounts were also used for routing of other funds.
Thus from the investigation it appears that the present petitioner was engaged in the illegal business of money transfer and providing entry, in lieu of commission and on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal used to collect cash from Ram Parkash Bhatia, which was actually the proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram. It has come on record that credit transaction of Rs 122 crores approximately have taken place from the said four bank accounts of Tara Chand and thus same amount was used for routing of funds - Thus, prima-facie, the involvement of the present petitioner in illegal routing of proceeds of crime cannot be denied as he played the vital role in this organized structure/process of illegal routing of proceeds of crime of accused Veerendra Kumar Ram.
Scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002 - HELD THAT:- Section 45 (ii) of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides twin test. First ‘reason to believe’ is to be there for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(1), 45(1), 45(2) of PML Act that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002.
This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime but as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been obtained by the accused person Veerendra Kumar Ram has been routed by this petitioner and he has also withdrawn the money from different fake accounts and transferred it into the account of the accused persons.
Now coming in to facts of the present case, it is evident from various paragraphs of the prosecution complaint dated 20.08.2023 that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct. Further, it has come that part of the proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the accused Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant and the said bribe money was getting routed by the help of present petitioner and Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/ relatives.
There is no reason to believe by this Court that the petitioner is not involved managing the money said to be proceeds of crime - This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of bail.
The petitioner failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail - this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the instant application stands dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 132 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - duping investors after having obtained licence to develop a housing project which also had been obtained on submission of forged and fabricated documents - about 3000 investors had been left high and dry and a wrongful loss of around one thousand crores had been caused - furnishing of fake bank guarantees, collaboration agreement, special power of attorney etc. - HELD THAT:- It is common knowledge that of late, economic offences, which strike at the very economy of a country have spiralled. Scams running into hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees no longer surprise the common citizen as they seem to have become a norm. Litigation pertaining to these disputes are consuming substantial time of the Courts. Where there is an illegality, the same has to be struck down. At the same time, frivolous and luxury litigation needs to be discouraged. It is for the Courts to separate the grain from the chaff with a view to ensure that whereas the rights of citizens are not harmed, litigation also does not flood the Courts.
The first argument that once the operation of the impugned order dated 07.01.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram and further proceedings in the consequential FIRs Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 respectively had been stayed, the ECIR could not have been recorded, is devoid of merit - It has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MANIK BHATTACHARYA VERSUS. RAMESH MALIK AND ORS. [2022 (10) TMI 1196 - SUPREME COURT] that a restraint order passed in a criminal matter would not affect proceedings under the PMLA especially once the Enforcement Directorate was not a party to the same and also because the offence of money laundering is an independent offence wherein, an accused would have independent remedies in case of violation of the statutory provisions.
The second argument that once, vide orders dated 05.07.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram had been directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the orders dated 07.01.2021 would be deemed to have been set aside and the consequential FIRs would become non-est and would be deemed to have been quashed or set aside is also devoid of merit.
The 3rd argument that non-bailable warrants could not have been issued in aid of investigation is also devoid of merit. Firstly, it has come on record that the petitioners had not been cooperating with the respondents and that while they initially appeared in pursuance to the notices issued, they gave evasive answers and now they have not been appearing in pursuance to the summons/notices issued by the respondents. If this argument was to be accepted, an Investigating Agency, be it the jurisdictional police, the Enforcement Directorate, CBI or any other agency would have no remedy if an accused chose not to cooperate with the investigation. It cannot be accepted that an Investigating Agency would be rendered without any remedy. Even otherwise, it is now well settled that an accused can very well be summoned or his presence can be compelled by way of non-bailable warrants by the Court at the instance of the Investigating Agency.
As regards the argument that petitioner Dharam Singh Chhoker had never been the director and, therefore, no proceedings could have been issued against them, the same is also devoid of merit. The argument that since Dharam Singh Chhoker was not arraigned as an accused in the complaints submitted by Neeraj Chaudhry, no proceedings could have been issued against him is also devoid of merit - All these issues have been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAVANA DIBBUR VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime.
A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that even if one of the petitioners was not shown to be an accused, he could be prosecuted under the PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. The scheduled offence, as already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, is not only in FIR Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 but also in other FIRs referred to therein. It is also clear from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment that since there were other FIRs also, proceeds of crime cannot be ruled out and, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence of money laundering can be said to have been committed - The reality would emerge only once the concerned Investigating Agencies conclude the investigation/inquiry.
The petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rejection of bail of the applicant - co-accused - Money Laundering - Proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - accusation is that the applicant has misused his authority as despite the land falling within CRZ- III in respect of which no permission could have been granted, the applicant knowingly proceeded to grant such permission - HELD THAT:- The Special Court has observed that the role of the applicant is not of generating proceeds of crime as defined under section 2(1) (u) and laundering the same as per section 3 of the PML Act. It is further observed that it is not even the contention of ED that the applicant is beneficiary of proceeds of crime or recipient thereof. The Special Court recorded the contention that the applicant has not laundered the proceeds of crime. The Special Court then referred to paragraph 12.2 of the prosecution complaint where it is mentioned that during the applicant’s tenure as Sub-Divisional Officer, Dapoli, the applicant misused his position and directly assisted in money laundering activities of accused Sadanand Kadam. In this context, it is important to note the observation of the trial Court that the role attributed to the applicant is that he had ‘knowingly assisted’ the process of money laundering.
The applicant – Jayram Vinayak Deshpande be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount - Until the applicant- Jayram Vinayak Deshpande furnishes surety, he be released on cash security of Rs. 1 lakh along with PR bond - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 76 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Limitations of Enforcement Directorate's Powers under PMLA - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - illegal mining - compoundable offences or not - reasons to believe - petitioner's first prayer is for the issuance of directions to ensure that the respondents do not violate the spirit and sanctity of the proceedings - violation of statutory provisions contained in the MMDR Act & Haryana Rules 2012 - statutory limits of Section 66 (2) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- As per the instructions supplied by the ED, in furtherance of the PMLA proceedings, based on reasons to believe, a search u/s 17 of the PMLA, 2002 was conducted at multiple premises to investigate the offense of commission of money laundering through illegal mining at large scale in Yamuna Nagar and nearby districts. Two premises of the Petitioner-residence and registered office of M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company were searched, and multiple incriminating documents, digital devices, and evidence were recovered, which reveals the generation of "proceeds of crime" by the Petitioner's firm. Also, unaccounted Cash of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is believed to be Proceeds of Crime, was also recovered from the residence of the Petitioner.
The material in possession, and findings of the Directorate of Enforcement, information was shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 with the Police. Further, under the information shared u/s 66(2) of the FMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 21 dated 19.01.2024 was registered u/ s 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860, 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and 15 & 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.
Violation of statutory provisions contained in the MMDR Act & Haryana Rules 2012 - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner has been made an accused by the ED itself in the FIR, it cannot be countenanced that he will be asked to appear in person in terms of Section 50 PMLA, which contemplates obligation on the person to attend as directed; to state the truth and the proceedings before the ED officer would be a “judicial proceeding.” The whole context of Section 50 PMLA would have a different outlook once the ED itself has chosen to arraign the petitioner as an accused in the FIR lodged by themselves. Therefore, the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are grossly violated as the procedure established by law is not followed, and the proceedings launched are grossly actuated with malice in law.
The petitioner’s contention that the said communication amounts to direction is misreading of the said communication, which has been reproduced in para 16. The communication is only information and it is the power of concerned investigator/SHO to register FIR if they are satisfied and found offence cognizable, as such, the present petition deserves dismissal even on this prayer and related prayers.
Thus, if this court disrupts the proceedings at this stage, it will amount to interfering in the investigation and presuming the malicious intent. It is not that the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty but to carry out investigation is also the statutory obligation of the investigators. If the prosecution is launched, it is always permissible to an accused to seek discharge and even to challenge the charges, if framed. However, disrupting proceedings at initial stage would violate the duty to investigate the crime and bring guilty to justice to do justice to the victim.
An analysis of the above does not make a case for issuing a formal notice and seeking a reply, and no response is required for the following clarifications. Consequently, the petitioner does not justify any prayer except that the further investigation will also be carried out in accordance with law and that in the future also, if any information is shared, the same shall again be shared within the parameters of section 66 of PMLA.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1256 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of right to privacy and dignity and right of fair investigation by press reports - Preventing any information from being leaked, including any confidential, sensitive, unverified/unconfirmed information, to the print / electronic media in relation to the ongoing investigation / proceedings - alleged violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that modern communication mediums advance public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that takes place in a democratic set-up. Dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same has always frowned upon by Courts. It is also equally well settled that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom of press and communication needs in a democratic society i.e., the right to be informed and the right to inform, however, not at the cost of right to privacy.
The Apex Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, [1984 (12) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] has observed Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to governments and other authorities. The authors of the articles which are published in the newspapers have to be critical of the actions of government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power.
The Petitioner herein is a former elected Member of Parliament and a public figure. The people are entitled to know about any news regarding the public figures. The accountability of persons who are public figures towards society is higher and they are subject to a higher level of public gaze and scrutiny - Since public figures are subject to closer scrutiny, unless the publications amount to harassment and invasion in private life of the individual public personality concerned or the family of the public personality, publications regarding the public life of such public personalities cannot be stopped from being published either by the Government or by the Orders of the Court.
The newspaper cuttings do not deal with the private life of the Petitioner but are only reporting regarding the investigation that is being conducted against the Petitioner who is a public figure and same is unrelated to her private life. There is nothing in the news articles which would have the effect of invading into the privacy of the Petitioner or tend to impair the impartiality of the investigation or that it can have the effect of prejudicing the trial of the Petitioner in the event it is initiated. It is well settled that Gag Orders against the media can be passed only when it has the potential to prejudice any investigation or an ongoing trial.
In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/ED that the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 has been and is being followed, and after perusing the news articles, this Court is of the opinion that the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioner by way of the present writ petition need not be granted at this stage - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1090 - SC ORDER
Money Laundering - predicate offence - manipulation of shares of the Indiabulls Group to benefit their close associates and diverting crores of public money by funding their own entities - HELD THAT:- It is not deemed necessary to delve into the question of maintainability of these appeals. This is for the reason that the appellant-ED has got efficacious alternative remedies traceable in law, to proceed against respondent nos.1 to 3 or any other person found to be involved in the alleged offences. The appellant-ED can, for such purpose, initiate appropriate independent proceedings notwithstanding the impugned judgments rendered by the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi.
The appellant-ED, besides any other remedy as may be available in law, can resort to two independent proceedings such as: (i) approaching the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; (ii) filing a review petition before the High Court of Bombay to seek clarification of the impugned judgment to the extent that it shall have no effect on the rights of the appellant-ED.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1089 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - sale of fake Remdesivir injections to earn huge money from Covid patients - proceeds of crime - main submission of the applicant is that the applicant is not involved in the proceeds of crime, he was already granted bail and no custody has been sought by the respondent at the time of final report and therefore, the trial court ought to have granted anticipatory bail - HELD THAT:- As per section 45 of the Act, 2002, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. The bail can be granted only if two conditions are fulfilled in addition to other conditions of section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. The bail can be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail otherwise, he should not be released on bail.
From reading the provision of section 45 of the Act, 2002, the general rule of bail not jail would not apply in such cases. The provision is otherwise as a presumption is attached that the accused is guilty and unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit such offence then bail can be granted.
The role of the applicant was that he was selling fake Remdesivir injection with the connivance of Sunil Mishra. He purchased fake Remdesivir injections from Dheeraj Sajnani at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per injection. Dheeraj Sajnani is his childhood friend. Applicant didn't have the prescription of any doctor at that time. He purchased four fake Remdesivir injections as it was in great demand in society. He sold two fake Remdesivir injections to Gagan Bhaiya whose daughter was admitted in Synergy hospital, Indore at that time - This clearly establishes that he along with Sunil Mishra and others has earned money illegally through sale of fake Remdesivir injections at the cost of lives of the innocent people. The money so generated as stated above is nothing but the proceeds of crime accumulated after the commission of the Scheduled Offence as per the scheme of PMLA, 2002.
Considering the money trail produced by the prosecution, which clearly proves involvement of the applicant in the present case, in which proceeds of crime is Rs. 2,89,00,000/-, this court is of the view that in view of the rigor of section 45 of the Act, 2002, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1088 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - predicate/scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - purchase of papers of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET, 2021) and its further distribution - Section 45(1) of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that to establish offence under the PMLA the Enforcement Directorate must demonstrate that procurement of the property as the “proceeds of crime” are derived from criminal activity from the predicate offences prescribed under Part-A and Part-B of the scheduled offence. It is also an established preposition that though the offence of money laundering is separate standalone offence, the proceeds of crime ought to have preceded the commission of predicate offences and thereafter laundered over. Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with the conditions for bail pending trial provides that the Court may grant bail to an accused if Court is satisfied that (i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii) That the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Admittedly, Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 is not scheduled offence as prescribed under Section 2 (Y) of the PMLA but the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. fall within the ambit of the scheduled offence as specified under Part-A of the schedule - there is ample evidence available against the accused implying that he obtained an amount of Rs. 1.06 Crores by selling the REET, 2021 papers. The recovery of aforesaid amount from above eight persons further shows that the accused siphoned the proceeds of the crime to various persons. The recovery of Rs. 1.06 Crores from the above persons exemplifies the use/concealment of the proceeds of crime by the present petitioner.
Whether, the predicate offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. is made out or not and whether the amount recovered from various persons is their legitimate amount or not, are the questions to be ascertained by the trial court, this Court cannot proceed into the intricacies of the case with regard to above issues, at the stage of bail. This Court has only to see whether there is prima facie evidence available against the accused-petitioner that he has committed the offence under Section 3 of Money Laundering Act.
As far as applicability of proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA is concerned, the above facts clearly show that the amount recovered from the above persons as proceeds of crime is more than Rs. 1 Crore, therefore, the case of the present petitioner does not fall within the ambit of proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PMLA.
The petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail - the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1074 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - present application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that all the documents related to the crime have already been seized and ECIR has been filed before the Competent Court which is pending for adjudication - HELD THAT:- The applicant said to have purchased the plots from Keshav Nachani who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide M.Cr.C. No.51485 of 2023. So far as the role of this applicant is concerned, he only assisted Dipak Jain in the crime. Deepak Jain transferred the property in the name of this applicant. The arrest is not required for custody/ interrogation as investigation is over now.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of filing of ECIR, the arrest of this applicant was not demanded by the prosecution agency hence, bailable warrant was issued for his appearance by the Special Judge.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant - Ashok Pipada shall be released upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub-Section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant shall also co- operate with the investigation - Application allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1025 - SC ORDER
Application for bail - offence under PMLA act - it was held by High Court that Rigors of Section 21(4) of MCOC Act as under consideration which is pari materia with Section 45(1) of PML Act, and considering the facts of the present case and the observations made hereinabove grounds for grant of bail are made out - HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the question of law is left open.
SLP dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1024 - SC ORDER
Grant of bail - Money Laundering - summons was issued and served upon the appellant, pursuant to which he surrendered himself before the Court - HELD THAT:- In the instant case though there was no order passed by the Special Court for issuance of summons or warrant against the appellant, a summons under Section 61 came to be issued on 22.12.2022 requiring the appellant to appear before the Special Court on 07.01.2023. The appellant appeared before the Special Court and applied for his release on bail. Since there was no order passed by the Special Court for issuance of the summons or warrant, in our opinion, the application of the appellant seeking bail could not have been entertained. There was a basic flaw in the proceedings conducted before the Special Court.
As such Section 437 would come into play when the accused is arrested or detained or when the summons or warrant is issued against the accused for causing him to be brought or to appear before the Court. In absence of any order for issuance of summons or warrant under Section 204 or under any other provision of Cr.P.C., the summons could not have been issued or served upon the appellant nor he could have been arrested or taken into custody. The appellant-accused also appears to have filed the bail application before the Special Court under the misconception of fact and misconception of law, which application came to be dismissed by the Special Court.
The appellant – accused No.10 is directed to be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Special Court - Appeal allowed.
........
|
