2018 (4) TMI 1935 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - forged documents - illegal money by making calls on certain pre-fixed international numbers and putting on hold such calls in the manner described in the complaint - offences punishable under Sections 419 420 467 468 471 and 120-B I.P.C. - HELD THAT - By the amending Act of 2009 the provisions of PML Act were amended and Scheduled offences under Sections 419 420 467 468 471 and 120B IPC which were in Part B of the Schedule were brought in Part A of the Schedule. Further Part B of the Schedule was omitted. Thus the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in acquiring or processing etc. of proceeds of crime were always part of the Schedule appended to the PML Act. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioners that these offences were not part of the Schedule at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed by them does not hold good in view of expressed provisions of the Act and the Schedule. There are no merit in the petitions and the same are therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of entire proceedings and summoning order in a complaint case.
2. Allegations of commission of offenses under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC.
3. Involvement in money laundering activities.
4. Interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provisions.
5. Application of the amended provisions of the PML Act to the case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings and summoning order in a complaint case pending in the District and Sessions Court, Lucknow. The case involved allegations of offenses under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC based on FIRs filed by the Anti Terrorist Squad. The accused were accused of obtaining phone connections through forged documents and making illegal profits through international calls.

2. The allegations revolved around the accused obtaining phone connections illegally and making international calls to earn money through a scheme involving holding calls for extended periods. The accused were accused of receiving commissions through various means, including bank transfers and hawala transactions. The accused were found to have received substantial amounts through these activities.

3. The complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 alleged that the accused had utilized the proceeds of crime for various purposes, including making payments to service providers and acquiring assets to project them as untainted property. The key accused was identified as the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, with others also implicated in the laundering activities.

4. The court examined the definitions and provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to determine the applicability of the offenses committed by the petitioners to the Act. The definition of "proceeds of crime" and "scheduled offense" under the Act were crucial in assessing the involvement of the accused in money laundering activities.

5. The court noted that the offenses alleged against the petitioners were part of the Schedule appended to the PML Act, even though there were amendments to the Act bringing these offenses under Part A of the Schedule. The argument that the offenses were not part of the Schedule at the time of the alleged activities was dismissed, and the petitions were rejected. The District and Sessions Court were directed to expedite the trial without unnecessary delays.