|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1549 Records
-
2024 (2) TMI 90 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Charge of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - illegal gratification demanded by and paid to senior Income Tax Officers - Framing of charges - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in ASIM SHARIFF VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [2019 (7) TMI 1546 - SUPREME COURT] expressed that the trial court is not expected or supposed to hold a mini trial for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record.
The Supreme Court in STATE VERSUS M.R. HIREMATH [2019 (5) TMI 1986 - SUPREME COURT] held that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
The Supreme Court in NEERAJ DUTTA VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) [2022 (12) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT] also referred by the Special Public Prosecutor held that a person could be convicted based on circumstantial evidence for the crime of demanding a bribe or illegal gratification under the PCA, 1988.
In the present case the material collected during the investigation by the respondent/CBI is not sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is not legally sustainable. The impugned order dated 12.09.2019 whereby the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under section 120B IPC read with sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and for the substantive offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 is set aside. The petitioner stands discharged for the offences for which he was discharged.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 89 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - bail sought on medical grounds - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - acquisition of three immovable properties by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer for bail on the Medical grounds for two reasons: Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner did not press this point at the time of arguments though the same has been averred in some detail in the application and briefly in the written submissions filed by the petitioner; and secondly, the PMLA does not provide for Bail, as a matter of right, solely on health grounds. As such, the prayer for Bail on medical grounds is not being considered.
In absence of any cogent material that the petitioner despite knowledge that a forged sale deed is involved in the claim supporting the title of the property situated at Chesire Home Road had purchased the same as a part of a larger conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime and that the petitioner had no role in the creation of the false document, this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. It needs to be iterated that materials on record do not establish, even prima facie, that the petitioner had the intention to commit an offence punishable under the PMLA.
Likewise in view of the fact that with respect to lands situated at Mouza Pugru and Siram no scheduled offence has been reportedly committed and the criminal law has not been set in motion, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] no offence punishable under section 4 PMLA can be said to have to committed by the petitioner. Viewed thus, it can be held without any hesitance that the allegations qua the land situated at Pugru and Siram prima facie do not make out an offence of money laundering and thus this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA.
The petitioner is in custody from 31.07.2023. The trial is yet to commence. There are 34 witnesses and more than 6000 of documentary evidence. The scheduled offence in respect of Chesire Home Road property is still at the stage of investigation; whereas in respect of the other two properties no FIR / Complaint alleging commission of schedule offence has been registered till date. Prolonged detention will not serve any purpose. No material has been brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner will hamper the trial in any manner and why his custody is important for the disposal of the trial.
Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the prosecution pertains to sale and purchase of a piece of land measuring one acre and the accusations do not pertain to wrong aimed to harm the public at large or defraud the government exchequer.
The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Criminal conspiracy - petitioner was convicted for the predicate offences under Sections 120B, 409 r/w 109 of the IPC - whether the respondent can maintain the complaint if the predicate offence is the offence of criminal conspiracy? - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered this question in Pavana Dibbur's case [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] holding that in the charge sheets filed in the alleged scheduled offences, there is no allegation of the commission of criminal conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule. As pointed out earlier, except for Section 120-B of the IPC, no other offence in the schedule has been applied. Therefore, in this case, the scheduled offence does not exist at all. Hence, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The petitioner was convicted for the offence of 409 r/w 109 and 120B of the IPC. Therefore, the predicate offence alleged and proved is conspiracy to commit offence under Section 409 of the IPC which is not a scheduled offence. Therefore, even assuming that there are proceeds of crime, it cannot be said to be as a result of commission of a scheduled offence, which is a prerequisite to maintain a complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA.
Since the respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of PMLA, as there are no proceeds of crime relating to any scheduled offence, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition is also liable to be set aside. Consequentially, though the Provisional Attachment Order has not been challenged, it is held that the said attachment order is also without jurisdiction.
The Criminal Original Petition and the Writ Petition are allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1122 - SC ORDER
Seeking direction to respondent to accept the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner in lieu of Fixed Deposits - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Fixed Deposits submitted by the respondent have been encashed by the appellant and the entire amount covered by the Fixed Deposits has been invested by the appellant in a Fixed Deposit.
The impugned interim order is modified by directing that the Bank Guarantees furnished by the respondent be returned to the respondent. We direct that the appellant will continue to renew the Fixed Deposit till the final disposal of the appeal before the High Court. At the time of finally disposing of the appeal, the High Court will consider the prayer made by the respondent regarding entitlement of the respondent to receive the interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 835 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Transfer of investigation from the State police to the Central Bureau of Investigation - HELD THAT:- The thrust of the petitioner that only the CBI should investigate the case and be able to arrest the suspect has to be juxtaposed with the inability of the ED itself, another powerful central agency accompanied by the CRPF personnel, to search and seize, far less arrest the suspect.
However, the involvement of the CBI personnel in the inveastigation of the present cases would be an imperative considering the ineptitude of the local police to handle the matter as discussed above and in view of the allegation of bias levelled by the petitioner, a premiere investigating agency - A pan-India organisation like the CBI would also be able to deal better with inter-State or inter-country measure if it becomes necessary to undertake the same. One cannot rule out the possibility of any accused illegally crossing over to a neighbouring country.
In order to unearth the truth and to apprehend the miscreants responsible, a concerted effort is required from both the Central and the State agencies. Thus, to instil confidence in the people and to have a fair and effective investigation, for the present, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) consisting of personnel from both the CBI and the State police need to investigate the alleged offences.
As FIR Nos. 8 and 9 of 2024 of the Nazat Police Station both pertain to allegations made in this same line, the cases need to investigated by the same agency.
It is directed that further investigation of the Nazat Police Station case Nos. 8 and 9 of 2024 shall be conducted by a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the CBI of the rank of a Superintendent of Police to be nominated by the CBI and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, IPS, presently posted as the Superintendent of Police, Islampur Police District. The CBI shall make the nomination by tomorrow i.e., 18.01.2024.
List this matter under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on 12.02.2024 at 2.00 p.m.
-
2024 (1) TMI 831 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - predicate offence - if in case an accused is acquitted/discharged in a predicate offence, in that eventuality, whether the prosecution initiated by the respondent/ED can be allowed to be continued or is liable to be quashed? - HELD THAT:- The issue was considered by the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] and it was observed that The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence 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.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nayati Healthcare [2023 (10) TMI 822 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has also considered the issue whether the prosecution initiated by the respondent/ED can be continued in a case where the accused has already been acquitted/discharged for the predicate offence where it was held that Considering that the FIR has been quashed by this court and that it has not been challenged till date, there can be no offence of money laundering under section 3 of the PMLA against the petitioners.
The complaint filed by the respondent/ED and the consequential proceedings cannot survive. Considering that the co-accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 and that the said judgment has not been challenged till date, there can be no offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA against the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - remitting of funds abroad by using forged and fabricated documents and by making wrong declaration regarding the purpose of remittance - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vijay Agrawal [2023 (5) TMI 1198 - DELHI HIGH COURT] observed that as per Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], though the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of PMLA restrict the right of accused to grant of bail but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. It is a settled proposition that the discretion vested in the Court has to be exercised in accordance with the law and has to be guided by the principles of law.
In the present case main allegation of the respondent/ED against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in outward remittance of huge amount in the account of foreign entities on the basis of forged Form 15CB Certificates. However, in the present case, there is no property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity concerning the scheduled offence which can be regarded as ‘proceeds of crime’. There is legal force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that the unauthorized outward remittance by forged Form 15CB Certificates does not amount to ‘proceeds of crime’ being generated from the scheduled offence i.e. fabrication of Form 15CB Certificates.
After considering all facts, including incriminating material against the petitioner which are the statements made by co-accused/witness under section 50 of PMLA and the fact that their evidentiary value can be tested at the stage of trial, no generation of ‘proceeds of crime’ from criminal activity and the petitioner being a sick and infirm person, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed. The petitioner, in case of arrest, shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer or any other authorized person subject to conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - Power to arrest - noncompliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA - Legality of arrest of the Petitioner - violation of settled tenets of law in Section 41A(3) Cr.PC or not - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the law laid down in MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2017 (12) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT] or in RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR [2018 (2) TMI 1327 - DELHI HIGH COURT] would be applicable, need not detain this Court any longer, in as much as, it is trite law that pendency of a reference to a larger bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision is rendered in the reference. Till the time, the decisions cited at the bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.
In the present case, there is absolutely no doubt that at the time of arrest of the petitioner i.e., on 09.06.2023, the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi was holding the field, which position continued till the pronouncement of decision in PANKAJ BANSAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT] whereby Moin Akhtar Qureshi and CHHAGAN CHANDRAKANT BHUJBAL, MS. ANJALI DAMANIYA, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, [2016 (12) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] were specifically overruled. Meaning thereby that at the time of petitioner’s arrest, oral communication of the grounds of arrest was proper compliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
The above position is also fortified by the observation of the Supreme Court in RAM KISHOR ARORA VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2023 (12) TMI 785 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Court held that non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with.
Now reverting to the factual conundrum which still looms large in the present case and needs to be decided is whether the petitioner was orally communicated, or in other words shown, the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and for this purpose reference to ‘ground of arrest’ and other contemporaneous documents is imperative - Clearly, the document ‘ground of arrest’ bears the signatures of the petitioner at two points. One, immediately after the conclusion of narration of grounds of arrest. Secondly, below the endorsement made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI DK. BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF UP. [1996 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT] to the effect that the petitioner has been intimated about his rights as an arrestee and his wife has been informed about his arrest “physically” at “22.28” on 09.06.2023. Therefore, there is no substance in petitioner’s contention that the signature of the petitioner on the ‘ground of arrest’ is only a token of acknowledgement of the compliance of mandate of D.K. Basu.
Therefore, merely because each page of the ‘ground of arrest’ is not signed by the petitioner cannot be a reason to disbelieve the existence of the said document, or to negate the fact that the grounds of arrest were shown and informed to the petitioner.
This Court to sum up, the findings which have been recorded in the remand order dated 10.06.2023, as corrected by order dated 20.06.2023, as follows – (i) the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the petitioner/accused was not informed about the grounds of his arrest, is contrary to the records, (ii) the petitioner/accused has been ‘shown’ the grounds of his arrest, and (iii) the grounds of arrest have been duly signed by the petitioner and countersigned by two independent witnesses.
The issue deserves to be considered from yet another angle. The respondent/ED had moved an application Section 167 Cr.P.C. seeking remand of the petitioner and a copy of same was undisputedly served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Special Judge on 10.06.2023. The remand application when juxtaposed with the ‘ground of arrest’ reveals that the remand application virtually contains the grounds of arrest, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi the petitioner stood informed of the grounds of arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA when he was produced before the learned Special Judge within twenty-four hours of his arrest by the ED for seeking his remand.
Concerned officer did not forward a copy of the arrest order along with the material in his possession immediately to the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2023 at 10:25 pm, which happened to be a Friday night. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Hossain that on Saturday i.e. 10.06.2023 and Sunday i.e. 11.06.2023 the office of the Adjudicating Authority remained closed, therefore, copy of arrest order along with other relevant material was immediately forwarded on 12.06.2023. It is trite law that where a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expired on a holiday, then according to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open.
The obligation flowing from the expression ‘immediately’ occurring in Section 19(2) of the PMLA has to be given meaning depending upon the context and the manner in which arrest order along with other material is to be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the rules - Further, it is well settled that when the statute provides something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone - there is no delay in forwarding a copy of the Order of Arrest along with the material to the Adjudicating Authority.
Thus, it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal. Under the circumstances, the petition and bail application deserve to be dismissed and, are accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 336 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - economic offences can be quashed at the investigation stage on the ground that the matter had been settled between the parties as they were public wrongs committed against the society?
HELD THAT:- In the case of Ram Kishan Fauji [2017 (3) TMI 1780 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court had not accepted the view expressed by a full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, wherein it held that, when the power was exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of a criminal proceeding, there was exercise of criminal jurisdiction. A distinction was sought to be made between proceedings for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the powers exercisable by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of criminal proceedings.
The present writ appeals are not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Money Laundering - misappropriation of the credit facilities extended to the Companies and siphoning them off for personal gains causing loss - HELD THAT:- Section 309 of Cr.P.C., does not indicate anywhere that remand cannot be extended unless reasons are recorded. If it is the case of the petitioner that he is in custody for an indefinite period as the trial is not proceeding on a day-to-day basis, his rights can certainly be protected to ensure speedy trial. That may also be a ground for seeking regular bail.
However, it is added that the Court considering the bail application, of course, would consider all other factors including the magnitude of the economic offences committed by the petitioner. But, it is far-fetched to say that extending the remand must contain reasons every time the trial is postponed for hearing. The violation of the rights, has to be adjudicated only in a bail application which is subject to twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of PMLA. Therefore, the orders passed by the Trial Court are in accordance with law and there is no reason to interfere with the same - application dismissed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail on the ground that the respondent has not completed the investigation? - HELD THAT:- Given the specific stand taken by the respondent, that the complaint and the materials filed disclose the offences and that they would proceed with the trial on that basis, it cannot be held that the investigation is incomplete and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. The respondent had already identified a portion of the proceeds of crime which is sufficient to prove the charge against the petitioner herein. The further investigation is conducted qua the remaining proceeds of crime.
In the judgment of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chitra Ramakrishna [2022 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Court was dealing with the Final Report filed by the CBI for the offence under Section 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act - In that case, the Delhi High Court found that the Final Report was incomplete and it was filed only to deny statutory bail to the petitioner therein. As stated earlier, an incomplete Final Report is different from a Final Report which states that further investigation is necessary to identify more proceeds of crime. In the present case, the complaints filed by the respondents are not incomplete and the trial can be proceeded with independent of further investigation - the observations made in the judgment of the Delhi High Court, would not apply to the facts of the instant case.
There are no merit in the three Criminal Revision cases and they are liable to be dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 16 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of SLP - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material placed on record, the impugned order passed by the High Court not interfered - the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks from today.
-
2024 (1) TMI 15 - SC ORDER
Money Laundering - seeking permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration that the main accused in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Case has already been released on bail and also been granted permission to travel abroad, issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
Dasti service, in addition, is granted.
-
2024 (1) TMI 14 - SC ORDER
Grant of bail - Money Laundering - Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 - High Court granted the bail subject to conditions - HELD THAT:- In view of these prima facie factual findings and stringent conditions imposed while granting bail, thus, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. As regards condition (d), apart from the fact that the respondent has not challenged the same, the legality of such condition is being examined in another case.
In the event, the respondent commits any breach of the terms and conditions on which bail has been granted to him or if he misuses the liberty granted under the impugned order, it is always open for the petitioner to apply to the concerned Court for cancellation of bail.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 13 - SC ORDER
Money Laundering - seeking release on bail - charges not framed yet - HELD THAT:- The appellant – Benoy Babu has already suffered incarceration for about thirteen months, and the trial has not commenced, in the sense, that charges have not yet been framed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant – Benoy Babu, it is accepted that the present appeals and direct that the appellant – Benoy Babu will be released on bail in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022, pending before the learned ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI-09), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
The impugned judgment/order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 12 - SC ORDER
Permission for withdrawal of Special Leave Petition - Grant of anticipatory bail - Seeking quashing of ECIR against the petitioner - Money Laundering - schedule offences/predicate offence - person who is not named in the ECIR has locus to seek relief such as quashing of ECIR or not - HELD THAT:- Permission as sought for is granted - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2024 (1) TMI 11 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - petitioner at the time of hearing of this matter on instruction submits that his client would not like to press the present petition - Legality of Bail granted - Money Laundering - offence of siphoning of money to Foreign Country - failure to co-operate with investigation and withholding the trail of proceeds of crime - adjudication not completed even after expiry of five years - HELD THAT:- The present petition is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 10 - SC ORDER
Seeking grant of regular bail - scheduled offences or not - illegal tapping of phone calls of NSE employees was conducted under the guise of an agreement between NSE and M/s ISEC Services Private Limited - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
It is obvious that the observations made in the impugned judgment are only prima facie observations for the limited purposes of considering the prayer for grant of bail. It is made clear that the observations will not prejudice the trial.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - principles of parity - illegal earning of black money and purchased movable and immovable property in the name of his family members - HELD THAT:- A woman can take benefit of the first proviso, where she can be released when the money laundering is of lesser amount. Since the applicant is main accused, the principle of parity is not applicable. On careful considerations to the precedents cited by learned Senior counsel for the applicant, but in the considered view of this Court, the same are inapposite to the factual scenario of this case.
On perusal of the law laid down in the case of MAHDOOM BAVA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [2023 (3) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] is concerned, the custodial interrogation was not required by CBI in that cases, hence due to different facts of the case, applicant of this case cannot be benefitted by the aforesaid case.
So far as the judgements passed in the cases of PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THROUGH I.O. [2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER] and RAGHVENDRA SINGH TOMAR APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2023 (5) TMI 1282 - SC ORDER], the facts of those cases are not applicable here, because in the case at hand, it is remonstrated by learned Dy. Solicitor General that the investigation pertains to applicant is still going on as he is still dealing with proceeds of crime. hence, in light of Section 45 of PMLA, applicant cannot be benefited for grant of anticipatory bail.
Since the matter is related to the economic offences containing property worth Rs. 1,55,87,861/-, the applicant cannot be released under the provisions of anticipatory bail and therefore, anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1293 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - applicant and other accused persons in conspiracy with the office bearers of the housing societies have purchased the land which had already been sold to the members - HELD THAT:- So far as the role of this applicant is concerned, he got executed the sale-deed of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by issuing four cheques of Rs.50 – 50 Lacs and out of said four cheques, three were bounced and one cheque of amount of Rs.50 Lacs was transferred and that too in the forged account in the name of society. Thereafter, he took loan of Rs.10 Crores by mortgaging the said land from Allahabad Bank which he invested in C-21 Mall, Bhopal thus, he got benefited to the tune of Rs.8.63 Crores. It is submitted that this is the only case registered against the applicant. He is ready to appear in the trial Court to get the regular bail.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant – Keshav Nachani 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.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - predicate offence - forgery - purchase of the land by Shri Anil Parab from Mr. Sathe - allegations are that by exerting pressure building permissions are illegally obtained - applicability of rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- There are no substance in the submission of the learned senior advocate Shri Desai that the accusations in the present case of money laundering involve a sum of less than Rs. 1 Crore for enabling the applicant to claim the benefit of the first proviso to section 45 of the PMLA. It is for this reason that the estimation of proceeds of crime as set out in the complaint is reproduced hereinbefore. Though learned senior advocate Shri Desai was at pains to point out that the accusations of money laundering against the applicant are for a sum of less than one crore rupees, having regard to the materials in the complaint, it is opined that arriving at this conclusion will entail a detailed fact-finding exercise which may not be permissible at the stage of considering the bail application.
No doubt, the challenge to the order passed by the revisional Court quashing the process is pending in this Court but the order of the revisional Court has not been stayed. The applicant can not, therefore, be deprived of the fruits of the order passed by the revisional Court merely because the Writ Petition challenging the revisional Court’s order is pending in this Court. It is always open for the respondent to take such steps in accordance with law in case the MoEF succeeds in the Writ Petition.
It is the submission that the act of registering FIR No. 177 of 2022 is malafide action on the part of the respondent. A reading of the MoEF complaint and the FIR No. 177 of 2022 indicates that though the property may be the same but the allegations made are in different context on the basis of the complaint filed by the separate entities. It is not possible to render a finding of malafide at this stage.
No doubt this Court while considering twin test of Section 45 of the PMLA has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, however, having regard to the nature of the accusations and the materials on record, it is not possible to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence - application dismissed.
........
|
