Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (6) TMI 588 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - forceful possession of property - proceeds of crime - main plank of the petitioner is that mere forceful possession of the subject property cannot be the proceeds of crime covered under section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA - HELD THAT - The gist of the offence of money-laundering as defined under section 3 of the PMLA is involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. Concerning a scheduled offence the definition of money-laundering under section 3 encompasses every possible manner of involvement of the person with the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. Section 3 incorporates every attempt whether directly or indirectly to conceal possess acquire or use the proceeds of crime. Even an attempt to project the proceeds of crime as untainted property or attempting to claim the same to be an untainted property shall come within the sweep of section 3. The expression possession has a definite meaning and connotation and illegal possession of a person over an immovable property is protected in law to a certain extent. The word property within the meaning under clause (v) to section 2(1) of the PMLA includes any property or assets of every description and it can be tangible or intangible. There is a crime registered for forging the revenue records falsification of the official records and other scheduled offences. This is the case pleaded by the ED that by its timely action the intended acts of forgery and manipulation in the revenue records of the subject property were foiled. The subject property must be considered the proceeds of crime which is in forceful possession of the petitioner and there is prima facie evidence of an attempt to commit the scheduled offences for legalizing the subject property. To constitute the offence of money-laundering under section 3 of the PMLA this is not necessary to establish that first a crime was committed which included the scheduled offence. It may so happen as has happened in this case that the property was first grabbed and then the attempt was made to make it lawfully acquired through illegal acts which shall constitute the scheduled offence or an attempt to commit the scheduled offence. The interpretation to section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA that is put is in tune with the intention of the Parliament and further advances the object and purpose behind the legislation. The validity of section 19 of the PMLA was under challenge in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Supreme Court held that this provision has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects of prevention of money-laundering and confiscation of the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering and prosecution of the persons involved in the processes or activities connected with the proceeds of crime under the PMLA Act; the Constitutional validity of section 19 was upheld. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Judicial Magistrate to authorize the detention of an accused in the custody of the police and until the accused is committed the Court of Sessions the Magistrate is vested with the power under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remand an accused to custody. However even where an order of remand is found to be illegal the accused does not get acquitted and the proceedings do not terminate. The provisions under section 19 of the PMLA are clear and unambiguous. The power of the arresting officer is well defined and his duties are prescribed under sub-sections (2) and (3). This is a fundamental rule of interpretation that if the words of a statute are themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense as the words themselves shall best declare the intention of the Legislature - In the present case the question of malafides pales into insignificance in the face of the abundance of materials collected by the ED which prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner with the proceeds of crime and money-laundering. The case set up by the ED against the petitioner is not based only on the statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA including of those who claimed themselves real owners of the properties in question there is an abundance of documents that lay a foundation for the arrest and remand of the petitioner to police and judicial custody. At this stage this is not possible to hold that the ED has proceeded against the petitioner for no reasons. The admissibility or otherwise of the materials collected by the ED can be examined by the Special Court if a prosecution report is filed against the petitioner. The learned ASG rightly contended that the scheme under the PMLA does not contemplate a mini-trial at this stage. The maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus which means when the foundation goes the superstructure falls shall not be applied in case of subsequent remand(s). Every remand order is a separate order and without laying a challenge to the subsequent remand order(s) the accused must fail in his attempt to seek a declaration that his custody is bad in law. The challenge to the remand order dated 2nd February 2024 is of no consequence and it is not demonstrated that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal. Petition dismissed.
|