Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 802 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - provisional attachment of immovable properties - Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- There is considerable merit in the appellant’s contention that it is not necessary that proceeds of crime in the hands of a person can be attached, notwithstanding that the person is not accused of any scheduled crime or the offence of money laundering. Plainly, if an asset which is derived by any person from a criminal activity is entrusted to another person, who is neither complicit in the criminal activity and is oblivious of the means by which the asset was acquired; he would neither be charged of committing a scheduled offence nor the offence of money laundering. Notwithstanding the above, the asset in his possession would be liable to be attached and confiscated in terms of the provisions of PMLA. The allegation against the respondent’s husband was that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his sources of income. It was found that as on 10.10.2007 (end of the check period), the respondent’s husband (Major Gen. Anand Kumar Kapoor) was in possession of assets to the extent of ₹5,51,92,598/-. These included both movable and immovable assets, either in his own name or in the name of the respondent. Three immovable properties of the respondent which are sought to be attached by the appellant were part of the immovable assets taken into account while calculating the assets held by the respondent’s husband as on 10.10.2007. The Trial Court had found that a total income of ₹4,10,35,864/- had been earned during the check period and an expenditure of ₹1,26,52,600/- was incurred during the said period - After accounting for the same, as well as the assets available at the beginning of the check period, the Trial Court concluded that the assets to the extent of ₹2,22,04,290/- were disproportionate to the known sources of the income of respondent’s husband. Thus, clearly the remaining assets were acquired from legitimate and known sources of income and therefore, cannot be considered as proceeds of crime. Assets, to the extent of ₹2,22,04,290/-, have been directed to be confiscated and thus, there is no scope for the present proceedings on the basis that any of the remaining assets constitute proceeds of crime. It is relevant to note that no particular assets held by respondent or her husband were identified as an asset derived from any criminal activity. The nature of the charge did not warrant any such inquiry and the extent of disproportionate assets had been determined on the basis of the value of assets at the end of the check period less the value that could be accounted from the known sources of income - the contention that three immovable assets held by the respondent are proceeds of crime, is fundamentally flawed. Appeal dismissed.
|