Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 34 - AT - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - Mis-management especially as regards payment of royalties with number of complaints were registered against - retention of documents seized by the Directorate of Enforcement against the appellant - non recording any ‘reason to believe’ for retention of documents seized - HELD THAT:- No civil or private disputes between two parties and any criminal proceedings can become subject matter of PMLA, unless the officer authorized has reason believe on the basis of information and material available in his possession to the effect that the ‘person concerned’ has committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act; and the ‘person concerned’ has derived and obtained proceeds of crime and as a result of criminal activities relating to a schedule offence or against third party who is in possession of any proceeds of crime and it is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with which may frustrate any proceedings under this Act within the meaning of Sections 5, 17 to 21 read with definition of Section (u) of the Act. The Respondent proceedings under the provisions of PMLA for securing “proceeds of crime” does not arise at all and the present proceedings are completely abuse of process of law. The continuation of proceedings are just for harassment and nothing else. The complainant has already deposed her statement who raised no-objection to quash the said F.I.R. before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. She has settled the disputes prior to registering the ECIR, search and seizure, on the date of filing of application under Section 17(4) for retaining the records In the present case, the statutory obligations laid down in section 20 (1), 20(2), 20 (4) and 21(4) of PMLA have not been complied with. An attempt has been made to retain the records without recording any ‘reason to believe’. The provisions of section 8 (3) (a) provides that the attachment or retention of property or record seized shall continue during the investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days. The said prescribed period has already been expired as more than a year has already elapsed but the properties and records have not been returned so far which is in clear violation of the provisions of PMLA. No prosecution complaint has been filed against the Appellant. In the light of above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.4.2018 is set-aside. The application filed by the respondent under Section 17(4) for retention of documents is dismissed accordingly.
|