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 135 - AT - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - retention of records - non specification of reasons - HELD THAT:- No report against the appellant has been forwarded to the Magistrate. No complaint against the appellant was filed before a Magistrate. No cognizance of schedule offence was taken by any authority or Additional Secretary to the Government of India. If the Act, if one will read in meaningful manner, 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 21read with definition of Section (u) of the Act. The Respondent proceedings under the provisions of PMLA forsecuring “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 offiling of application under Section 17(4) for retaining the records and passing the impugned order, the respondent was party to the said proceedings but still the Respondent has chosen to conduct the search and seized several important and confidential records/documents belonging to the Respondent on 03.11.2017. 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. Anattempt has been made to retain the records without recording any‘reason to believe’. The provisions of section 8 (3) (a) provides that the attachment orretention of property or record seized shall continue during theinvestigation for a period not exceeding ninety days. The said prescribed period has already been expired as more thana year has already elapsed but the properties and records have not beenreturned so far which is in clear violation of the provisions of PMLA. Noprosecution complaint has been filed against the Appellant. Present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.4.2018 is set-aside. The application filed by therespondent under Section 17(4) for retention of documents is dismissed accordingly.
|