Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1289 - AT - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - attachment orders -"proceeds of crime” - bank balance available in the bank a/c‟s of M/s PPL as liable for attachment as “value thereof of proceeds of crime” - HELD THAT:- In the absence of the vital missing links between the alleged crime and the amount in possession of the Respondents, the Complainant proceeded to issue the Provisional Attachment Order contrary to the statutory mandate. The said order suffered from many infirmities as the money sought to be attached have been generated through legal commercial transactions entered into by the Respondent. The same were not generated through the commission of any scheduled offence. The assets, as thus, are not liable for attachment under the terms of the PMLA itself. There is no nexus whatsoever between the alleged crime and the Respondents herein, and thus no case of money laundering is made out at all. The Complainant seeks to attach property which has not been generated through proceeds of crime. Merely retaining money legally obtained is not the same as deriving or obtaining the same through a criminal activity. Any other interpretation would render the ED liable to mandatorily prosecute every case of cheating where one party fails to pay another like in recovery of money cases and the lakhs of cases pending under section -138 of Negotiable Instrument Act where the cheques issued by the borrowers are dishonored. Balances of the credit of PPL in the provisionally attached bank accounts are other proceeds from its legitimate licensing activities, and represent licence fees to be distributed to PPL‟s owner-members, after recouping PPL‟s operating and administrative costs. This has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 10 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. 38. No allegation of criminal activity against the Respondents at any stage can be considered appropriate as the respondents have been ready to pay the royalty after due compliance of law in view of amendment of Copyright Act. The complainant was reminded several times to receive the royalty subject to execution of relevant documents as per law. The proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority are for confirmation of the provisional attachment order. If in a particular case, as is the situation in the present matter, the very basis of the respondent‟s case that the property attached is proceeds of crime or that involved in money laundering is found to be unsustainable, no fault can be found with the subject decision of the adjudicating authority not to confirm the adjudication order We may add that it is settled law that the allegations in the FIR and the Charge-Sheet have to be specific, clearly stating the role of the accused persons. However, in the present case, there has been no allegation whatsoever against the Respondents in the FIR or the Charge-Sheet.
|