Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1418 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Property acquired from proceeds of crime or not - involvement in an international syndicate of laundering the money generated out of drug trafficking in Australia and other countries - continuation of proceeding under PMLA. HELD THAT:- The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is therefore, layered and multi-fold and includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence of laundering money as well. The language of Section 3 clearly implies that the money involved in the offence of money laundering is necessarily the proceeds of crime, arising out of a criminal activity in relation to the scheduled offences enlisted in the Schedule of the Act. Hence, the essential ingredients for the offence of Section 3 of the PMLA become, first, the proceeds of crime, second, proceeds of crime arising out of the offences specified in the Schedule of the Act and third, the factum of knowledge while commission of the offence of money laundering. In the present matter, at the initial stage of proceedings, the Respondents were charged for offences under Section 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act and 420/468/471/120B of the IPC, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, observed that material produced before the Court as well as the allegations made against the Respondents were largely made upon suspicion. Though certain material, properties and cash, were recovered and attached/seized but the fact that such properties were obtained through proceeds of crime of drug trafficking could not be established. In view of the observation that the no scheduled offence was made out against the Respondents, this Court finds that an investigation and proceedings into the PMLA could not have been established against them at the first instance. A bare reading of the provision of the Cr.P.C. suggests that the Court shall limit itself to the findings, sentence or order passed by the subordinate Court, against which the Revisionist is seeking relief before the Courts concerned, and shall not go beyond the analysis and observations made by the subordinate court. By extension, a limitation and bar is, hence, set out on the scope of the powers that may be exercised by the concerned Court under the provision which precludes the Revisional Court to go into the enquiry of evidence and submissions made before the subordinate Court at the time of passing of the impugned Order, against which the revision is sought. In the present matter, the Petitioner had filed a Supplementary Complaint based on certain additional documents received by it against the Respondents, including, the Prosecution Report of Commonwealth Director of the Public Prosecution by the Australian Federal Police. The Petitioner based its findings against the Respondents on the said documents and alleged certain facts based on the apprehension that the amount being transferred from the business accounts of the Respondents were proceeds of drug trafficking and hence, was laundered money. Keeping in view all the material, including the abovementioned document, the Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied that the apprehension and suspicion of the Petitioner was well founded and even for the offences under the NDPS, no recovery was brought on record - It was observed that the additional evidence did not disclose prima facie any material to infer that the accused persons, Respondents herein, were involved in the commission of the offences alleged against them. Thus, this Court finds force in the argument that since no offences were made out against the Respondents as specified in the Schedule of the PMLA, the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA also, do not arise as the involvement in a scheduled offence is a pre-requisite to the offence of money laundering - there is no apparent error, gross illegality or impropriety found in the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Petition dismissed.
|