Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 781 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Attachment of property - utilization of proceeds of crime (POC) - whether the properties attached are acquired from proceed of crime or not - ultimate beneficiary of the POC - doctrine of privity of contract - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- The facts remains that the payments made for the services provided to the M/s KB. Bhise & Co. during 2004 to 2006 were actually received between 06.02.2004 to 08.04.2006 whereas the properties attached by the Respondent were purchased during 2003, 2009, 2010 and 2011. It is stated on behalf of appellant that the properties in question were not purchased during the period of 2004-2006. Hence, the attached property can be construed as 'proceeds of crime' u/s 2(1 )(u) of PMLA. It is stated by the appellant that the source of acquisition of all these properties are duly disclosed to the Income Tax Department and the ITRs for the relevant period were duly furnished to the Respondents during the course of investigation and also placed on record before the Tribunal with prior service to Counsel for ED. Role of the accused person as per respondent in the offence of money laundering - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal is of the view that in view of material placed on record, it is not fit case to release the attachment though there has been an inordinate delay of 7 years between the filing of the FIR and passing of the Provisional Attachment Order. Their balance is to be strike in light of facts involved in the matter in view of non-action by the ED against M/s. H.B. Bhise and Company. In the present case is that the specific complaint of NMMC is against M/s. H.B. Bhise and Company, who had submitted the forged bill. The appellant firm has received the amount from H.B. Bhise and Company who has allegedly committed the fraud and other schedule offence, however, no action was taken by the ED against the said company. The ED has not attached the property of M/s. H.B. Bhise and Company, nor any prosecution complaint has been filed. When this situation is confronted to the learned counsel and IO appearing on behalf of respondent, there was very vague answer. Firstly, it was admitted that no action under PMLA was taken against him. Secondly, it was mentioned that he may become approver. One is failed to understand that as per complaint, the FIR was registered and thereafter, on the basis of averment made in the complaint of NMMC, the charge sheet was filed against him also, how he can become approver as per allegation made against him. Only ED is aware why no action was taken if any case is made out on the basis of complaint and charge-sheet. Role of appellant - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the PMLA investigation is also against the appellant. However, the said allegations are to be established in trial of schedule offence and PMLA charge-sheet - All the allegations of both authorities are to be tested as per law. It is a matter of fact that no valid explanation is given by the respondent, why the provisional attachment was passed after the gap of seven years and at the same time, the benefit is given to M/s. H.B. Bhise and Company by not attaching its property and why no prosecution complaint has been filed as per allegations available on record. No case is made out to release the property although there are certain issues raised by the appellant have some force - the appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned order - It is directed that as far as attachment of properties are concerned, the same shall continue, however, the respondent is restrained to take the physical possession. Appeal allowed in part.
|