Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 670 - AT - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - legality of provisional attachment orders - Held that:- The provisional attachment itself is bad in law and it is not a Provisional Attachment as envisaged in the Act. The said presumptive attachment is also in violation of express proviso 2 of Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. Here the Respondent failed to record in writing his reasons for believing that the immediate non-attachment of properties will frustrate the proceedings of the crime. The Complaint filed by the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority under Sec. 5(5) of PMLA, 2002 is for a presumptive Attachment order and not for actual Attachment order as contemplated under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. The entire process right from the Provisional attachment under Sec. 5(1) by the respondent dated 10.03.2014, subsequently filing complaint under Sec. 5(5) before the Adjudicating Authority, issuance of notice to the parties concerned by the Adjudicating Authority under Sec. 8(1) and passing of the Confirmation Order under Sect. 8(3) and attachment of the properties under Sec. 8(4) of PML, 2002 and Rule 7 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 are not according to the above provisions and cannot be sustained. The Respondent without following the above (correct) procedure directly took possession of the property from the concerned Banks and even without producing the original fixed deposit receipts, which were in the name of the Principal Special Judges for CBI Cases, Chennai, had transferred the same in the name of the Directorate of Enforcement.
|