Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 36 - ATPMLAOffence under PMLA - Held that:- The presumption under section 5(1)(a) cannot be drawn ipso facto that they have in their possession the proceed of crime received as professional charges and on the basis of presumption, their movable and immovable properties can be attached unless link and nexus directly or indirectly towards crime with the accused is established within the meaning of section 2(1)(u) of the Act. In the absence as mentioned above, they are to be treated as innocent persons. If the argument of the respondent is accepted that a mere possession of money paid by the accused as service charges to the professionals without any link and nexus, then the movable and immovable properties of most of the professionals may be attached and after confirmation, the same is vested with the State. The same is not intention and scheme of the Act. Mechanical orders of such nature by the respondent and adjudicating authority cannot be passed blindly. They have to apply their mind and consulting well established law. Section 5 and 2(u) of PML Act, 2002 have to be read together when any order of attachment is passed. Unless link and nexus of proceed of crime is established under section 2(1)(u), the proceedings under PML Act, 2002 can not be initiated. No case is made out on merit. The impugned order against the appellant is totally perverse and against the law. The respondent has not prima facie established that the appellant has any link in the nexus in the crime. The prosecution complaint against the appellant has already been dismissed. The appellant has merely received the consultation fee from the accused party at the time of receiving the said fee. The appellant was not aware that he is receiving the consultation fee which may be part of proceed of crime.
|