Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 961 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - retention of documents and jewellery recovered during the search - Section 17(4) of the Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (1) of Section 17 provides that the authorised officer has to record the reason to believe in writing. In the such reason to believe, he has also to record the basis of information which is in his possession before conducting the search and seizure. It stipulates that if person concerned has committed any act which constitutes money-laundering, or is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering, or is in possession of any records relating to money-laundering, then any authorised officer can enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where that such records or proceeds of crime are kept, who is also empowered to break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle where the keys thereof are not available and seize any record or property found as a result of such search, place marks of identification on such record or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; make a note of an inventory or such record or property and to examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any record or property, in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation. In the present case, 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. ' It was admitted in the impugned order that the gold jewellery may not be in any way related to the manipulation in share price or may not have any linkage but Adjudicating Authority wishes to retain the same for the purposes of investigation as there would not be any harm cause to the appellant. As a matter of fact, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound on the basis of material to give the reasons that the party is involved in money laundering and property is acquired from proceed of crime - There is no specifically reference about the investigation about the jewellery and gold as to whether those are acquired from proceeds of crime or not despite of ninety days period provided under section 8(3)(a) of the Act. It is therefore evident that the gold and jewellery is not the part of alleged proceeds of crime or any linkage. It is a matter of shocking when we read the findings of Adjudicated Authority that “no harm will cause if retention may continue.” The impugned order is set aside as far as gold and jewellery is concerned - With regards to documents, the Appellant is entitled to take the copies under sub section (2)of Section 21 of the Act. Appeal allowed in part.
|