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 799 - AT - Money LaunderingAttachment orders - PMLA - Arbitration Award - Held that:- Provisions of the Section 8(8) ibid which provides that where a property stands confiscated the Central Govt u/s 8(5), the Special Court may also direct the central government to restore such confiscated property or part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of the money laundering. Further, in terms of the proviso to the said sub-section, such claims shall not be considered unless the Special Court is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of the money laundering. With regard to the above, it is mentioned that in the present appeal, this Tribunal is considering the appellant’s challenge to the impugned order of the passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the property in question. The confiscation or otherwise of the attached property is within the domain of the Special Court. However, the said provision does not in any way interfere with the power of the Tribunal in terms of section 26 (4) of the act to either uphold, set aside or modify the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority including the provisional attachment order in question. In view of facts direct that as far as the immovable property including the factory under attachment is concerned, the same be released from attachment, subject however to the condition that the appellant shall furnish the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of ₹ 4.67 crores in the name of respondent no. 1 to the Enforcement Directorate within two months of this order as a security amount. The said FDR shall be furnished by the appellant without prejudice. In case the learned Special Court after trial holds that the said amount is not proceeds of crime, the appellant would be entitled to receive back the principal amount of the FDR as well as the interest accrued thereon. In case the finding of the special court is otherwise, the respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to the principal amount of the FDR as well as the interest accrued thereon. Once the FDR as above is furnished by the appellant to the satisfaction of the Respondent-1 within two months of this order, the attached immovable property including the mill be released forthwith to the appellant.
|