Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 231 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - provisional attachment of property - scheduled offences - murder - attempt to murder - abduction - extortion - criminal intimidation - kidnapping - cheating - can the petitioner be prosecuted for the offences u/s.3 and 4 of the PMLA? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, being the Managing Director of the Pothy brothers, has been prosecuted for purchasing the impugned property from the daughter of an alleged criminal. The word “alleged criminal” is carefully used because Sridhar is no more alive for him to contest the allegations against him. For mulcting criminal liability u/s.3 and 4 of the PMLA, the prosecution should place materials before the Court to show that the person has not only acquired the property by committing a scheduled offence, but, he should have projected that property as untainted - In this case, it is the definite case of the prosecution that the impugned property was acquired by Sridhar in the name of his wife by committing various criminal activities. Of course, a name lender to the principal accused can also be brought within the net of section 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA as abettors. In other words, where the principal offender projects a tainted property as an untainted one, not only will he be held liable, but also all others who had helped him to project the tainted property as untainted. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein was projecting a tainted property as an untainted one nor is it their case that the petitioner had abetted D. Sridhar in projecting a tainted property as an untainted one. The petitioner was only a bonafide purchaser of the impugned property from the daughter of D. Sridhar. This sale deed is a registered document, which the prosecution themselves rely upon - A perusal of the averments in the sale deed shows that the petitioner had paid various amount by RTGS to Kumari, the mother of Dhanalakhmi Sridhar on 31.12.2015, 13.01.2016 and 23.02.2016 and has also deducted TDS for that. This payment to the mother of Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, which has been reflected in the sale deed itself, cannot amount to an offence u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PMLA. The prosecution of the petitioner u/s.3 and 4 of the PMLA in S.C.No.74 of 2017 is an abuse of process of law. Ergo, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
|