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 1086 - AT - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - freezing of bank account - Copy of reason to believe not produced - permission to lease-out the property to third party denied - HELD THAT:- Despite of interim order on 26.3.2018 passed by this Tribunal, has issued a communication to other authority not to grant the approval/license to the appellant. The said act of the respondent is clearly in breach of interim order passed by this Tribunal. The respondent has no jurisdiction for violation of the order. The explanation given by the counsel that since the appellant during retention proceeding entered into an agreement with third party, therefore, the respondent has issued such communication. The said explanation is not valid. The respondent is duty bound to comply all the orders of the Court included of this Tribunal. If the respondent wanted to issue communication to the authority, the respondent could have filed the application for seeking the permission of this Tribunal in this regard. Even notice issued u/s 8(1) is defective, as the details of the property is not mentioned nor the reasons to believe are given. The plea taken by the appellant is of serious in nature, however, this tribunal at present is not inclined to pass the order to defreeze the immovable property in question in view of serious allegations made in the FIR though the charge-sheet in the schedule offence is yet to be filed. The role of appellant would have to be seen once the charge-sheet is filed. Till that time, the appellant should be allowed to lease-out the property to third party. I am of the view that once the retention proceedings under section 17(4) were pending, the appellant ought to have waited before execution of lease-agreement with third party. In view of alleged allegations mentioned in the FIR, the immovable property cannot be defreezed. Thus, the impugned order is partly modified in view of the finding arrived in paras 8 & 12 of my order. As far as freezing of bank accounts are concerned, the same are de-freezed subject to the condition that the appellant shall not deal with the balance amount lying in the accounts. The said accounts, however can be operated by the appellant. As far as immovable properties are concerned, the interim order passed on 26.03.2018 shall continue till the final order passed by the Special Court after recording the evidence. However, the freezing order pertaining to immovable properties shall continue till the final order is passed by the Special Court. The appellant is always at liberty to move the petition for review of order for de-freezing, if charges are not framed against him.
|