|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 121 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 620 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - siphoning of funds - allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by the petitioner - bogus contracts - HELD THAT:- The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.
The alleged acts were committed when the petitioner was assuming office as a Director of ILRL and also as the Managing Director of ITNL. The ‘Committee of Directors’, which awarded the contracts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the petitioner’s tenure in ILRL. In fact, the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The petitioner’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts cannot be ruled out. The investigation qua the petitioner as well as the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off amount is still pending. Apparently, the money that is alleged to be siphoned off is public money and the offence is grave in nature. Indeed, the Investigating Officer has interrogated the petitioner twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court finds itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody is required.
This Court cannot overlook the submission made on behalf of the State that the petitioner had occupied the highest office and as such, the risk of his tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses also cannot be completely ruled out. The other co-accused namely R.L. Kabra and Mukund Sapre have been released on regular bail and as such, the petitioner cannot claim parity with them. The Court, in these facts and circumstances, cannot turn down the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking custodial interrogation.
Bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 616 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - diversion of funds - main plank of the prosecution is that funds from the bank are diverted for purposes other than stated business of the firm by routing funds obtained in the account of M/s HLF and M/s HSE and directed to M/S Mashreq Communication Limited, which is a Mumbai based company indulged in the production of films - HELD THAT:- No case for interference is made out at this stage for interference in the proceeding launched against the petitioner under PML Act, 2002 - The petitioner has full right and liberty to move an appropriate application for grant of anticipatory bail.
In light of the fact that for the same property, indulgence have been shown by the appellate tribunal dealing with the fact and issue, it is provided that in case an application for anticipatory bail is moved by the petitioner within a period of ten days from today then the same may be considered and decided expeditiously by the Special Judge, PML Act in accordance with law and till the decision taken on the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner - the Special Judge, PML Act shall decide the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner expeditiously and the petitioner undertakes not to take any unnecessary adjournment and nor shall grant any unnecessary adjournments.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 152 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Continuation of attachment during the pendency of the appeal - money laundering - siphoning of funds - loss of ₹ 2654.40 crores to a consortium of as many as eleven banks - HELD THAT:- It has to be considered that the attachment orders by the Prevention of Money Laundering authorities came to be issued subsequent to the Central Bureau of Investigation having filed the F.I.R. and chargesheet against M/s.DPIL and after thorough investigation. When prima facie case has been made out under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment of the properties as per the orders passed by the authorities could not be said to be unjustified in law. Section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, 2002 defines the proceeds of crime as a property derived out of criminal activity or even the value of any such property.
The submission on behalf of the appellants was acceptable that Section 71 of the PML Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over any other law. The whole object of the law of money laundering is to prevent the money laundering and to confiscate the properties derived from and involved in the money laundering or which are those held incidental thereto. The powers exercised for attachment of the properties by the appellants herein have to be justified in that view. If the attachment is released while the appeal is pending, it would render the appeal virtually meaningless from the backdoor, which cannot be permitted.
The order dated 18th June, 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi, which is impugned in this appeal whereby attachment of the properties of M/s.DPIL is released shall remain stayed till the final outcome of this appeal - Application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 755 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Modification of the ex parte ad interim order - maintenance of status quo in respect of attached properties - acquittal of the accused - it was alleged that the present applicants with other accused were intentionally aiding and facilitating the payment of alleged quid pro-quo of ₹ 200 crores as a reward for alleged undue favours shown to company - HELD THAT:- The plea of petitioner/ED raised in these applications for early hearing was that since this Court is to demit the office on 30th November, 2020 and arguments on behalf of petitioner in Crl.L.P. 185/2020 stand concluded and part arguments on behalf of respondents have already been advanced, the leave petitions should, therefore, be heard expeditiously and in case, the arguments remain inconclusive, the petitioners will have to address all the arguments afresh. The said applications for early hearing were strongly opposed by learned counsel for the applicants and other respondents on various grounds i.e. the Courts are hearing only urgent matters through video conferencing as per the Roster and non-urgent matters shall be taken up by the Roster Benches on resumption of regular hearings. It was also argued as to why these petitions be given preference in hearing over the appeals in which accused persons are in jails.
The leave petition was set down for day to day hearing from 5th October, 2020, while the orders in these applications stood reserved. It goes without saying that Coordinate Bench of this Court after preliminary hearing and being satisfied, had passed ex parte ad interim order dated 21st March, 2018 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties. Perusal of instant applications and replies reveals that disputed and complicated issues have been raised which require analysis of evidence and judgment of learned trial court which is voluminous in nature and is, no doubt, subject matter of leave to appeal also which this Court intended to decide at the earliest and had even directed listing of the same for hearing on day to day basis from 5th October, 2020 onwards.
Since the subject matter of present applications required thorough examination of the impugned judgment, this Court had, therefore, made an earnest effort to hear and decide the leave to appeal as expeditiously as possible. However, this Court has to say with a heavy heart that limited time available at its disposal was consumed in hearing and disposal of miscellaneous applications and writ petitions filed one after another on behalf of the respondents, which have been dismissed vide detailed orders/judgments on merits. Had the leave to appeal been heard on merits, a clear picture would have emerged and this Court could have arrived at a conclusion whether the properties at all are required by the prosecution or these should be released to the applicants - In the absence of any arguments on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 21st March, 2018 vide which status quo in respect of attached properties was directed to be maintained, need not be interfered with at this stage.
This Court is of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice if these applications are decided only after hearing arguments in criminal leave to appeal. However, if there is inordinate delay in disposal of leave to appeal, the applicants/respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by filing fresh application for release of attached properties, which will then be considered in accordance with law.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 667 - ATPMLA
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime -reasons to believe - It is alleged that the appellant no.1 Mr. Bharat Yadav has acquired properties in his name as well as in the name of his family members from the proceeds of above mentioned crimes including the alleged crime of robbery, dacoity, extortion and offences relating to arms under Arms Act, 1959, since 1988 onwards. It is also alleged that appellant no.1 Mr. Bharat Yadav has acquired aforesaid immovable properties after 01.07.2005 (i.e. after PMLA came into force), from his criminal activities, in his name or in the name of his family members.
HELD THAT:- The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not examined whether the satisfaction of the Complainant regarding reasons to believe is in accordance with law - On perusal of the PAO, it is seen that the Deputy Director has only mention the verbatim of Section 5(1)(b) of the PMLA, 2002.
The impugned order dated 31.05.2018 is set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication of the case against the appellants within 180 days from the date of receipt of this order or from the date of the order when either of the parties brings it to the knowledge of this order. The appellants are directed to file appropriate application within thirty (30) days from today raising all the legal issues raised in these appeals, before the Adjudicating Authority, who shall after giving due opportunity to both the parties decides all the legal issues including the issue of “reasons to believe” - The Adjudicating Authority shall decide all the issues raised in the case, except the issues decided above, in accordance with provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 8 of PMLA,2002 and also record findings whether all or any of the properties attached are involved in money laundering under Section 8(3) of PMLA, 2002. This Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on merits of the source of income, earnings out of which or by means of which the appellants have acquired attached properties.
However, during the course of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority the attachments shall continue and both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Orders - attachment of certain properties of the petitioners for a period of 180 days from the date of the said order - petitioners filed the present petition on 15.06.2020 claiming therein that as the period of 180 days from the date of the Provisional Attachment Orders had expired, in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act, the said order ceased to have effect and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority had become functus officio and the proceedings in the complaint cannot proceed - HELD THAT:- The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that as the delay in proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority cannot be blamed on the respondents, the respondents must not be penalized and the time period should be extended, cannot be accepted. It is not a question of penalization of the respondents for the delay, but of application of the mandate of law from which there is no escape. Equally, the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit can also have no application.
The 180 days from the date of the Provisional Attachment Order dated 13.11.2019 having expired without any order under Section 8(3) of the Act being passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it is held that the Adjudicating Authority has been rendered functus officio and cannot proceed with the Original Complaint, being O.C. No. 1228/2019 pending before it. The Notice/Summons dated 26.05.2020 is accordingly set aside.
In the present case, it is restrained from making any comment on whether the period of total lockdown declared by the Central Government, that is from 24.03.2020 to 20.04.2020, can be excluded for computation of the 180 days, as it is not disputed that even on exclusion of this period, the 180 days would have expired on 16.06.2020, the returnable date of the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - submission of Shri Venegaonkar is that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden and has failed to produce even prima facie material in support of his contention. Shri Venegaonkar specifically deny the submission of Shri Ponda that the applicant was not a member of COD of IFIN at any point of time - HELD THAT:- From the material placed by the respondent, it can be seen that the applicant was involved in the infrastructure projects and the documents from the Ministry of Corporate affairs rather corroborate the submission of the respondent. He was involved into various infrastructure projects and therefore, in various Special Purpose vehicles or various infrastructure Limited companies, his name feature as a Director. The submission of Mr.Ponda therefore thus require a mention, just for its rejection. The applicant has also received amounts towards PRP, deputation cost and sitting fee that is clearly reflective of the benefit being drawn by him from the dealings of IFIN as well as IL&FS Financial Services. Reliance is placed on statements recorded during the course of investigation under the PMLA Act and the modus operandi of IL&FS and its subsidiary companies has surfaced. The PMLA Act of 2002 which aim to prevent money laundering, it contain a provision which raises presumption as to records or property and into interconnected transactions. By virtue of Section 24 while dealing with proceedings relating to proceeds of crime unless the contrary is proved, a presumption exists that such proceeds of crime are involved, where a person is charged with offence of money laundering.
The burden under Section 24 is cast on the accused to prove that proceeds of crime are not involved in purchasing the properties owned by the accused. The applicant who has been arraigned as an accused in the capacity as the Managing Director of ITNL and one of the members of the Committee of Directors of IFIN (for infrastructure projects) is attributed a key role. IFIN who was shouldering the responsibility of syndicating the debt and equity for ITNL and ITNL would post its requirement for the projects to IFIN, the RBI had advised IFIN to run down its exposure to group companies with no fresh lending. In spite of that, ITNL for whom the applicant was working as Managing Director received fund from IFIN. It is revealed during investigation that loans were sanctioned to various entities who were undertaking various projects and the applicant had given letter of assurance dated 29th March 2018 on behalf of ITNL. The CFO of one of the groups in his statement has admitted that he had meetings with K. Ramchand for obtaining fund from IFIN in favour of M/s.GHV Hotels Ltd which is running in loss for last few years which was entitled to be transferred to ITNL.
Prima facie on the basis of the allegations levelled against him and on the basis of the statements of the co-accused, Arun Saha has described the applicant to be in executive management of ITNL as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer and his response to the query whether ITNL had any control over the SPVs and the contractors to whom work was allotted, is that ITNL had control over those SPVs in which ITNL was one of the partners and holding majority stake and that the executive management of ITNL had a role to play by ascertaining the genuineness, working experience, good will etc for contractors and their companies. The applicant has played a pivotal role since in most of the SPVs, ITNL had 100% stake - The applicant who was working as Managing Director of ITNL, therefore, will have to answer the charge.
It is a well settled position that the jurisdiction to grant bail has tobe exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail – (a) The nature of accusastion and severity of the punishment in case of conviction and nature of material relied upon by the prosecution (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses (c) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence (d) character, behaviour and standing of accused and circumstances peculiar to him. (e) larger interest of public of the State and similar other considerations. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail.
The magnitude of the offence involving the applicant is enormous and the amount involved is huge. The effect of the conspiracy on behalf of the accused persons focusing on a desired result makes it a serious economic offence. The IL&FS Financial Services which was facing a serious liquidity crisis leading to their inability to fulfil debt obligation and the investigation has revealed that those in helm of affairs played a hoax and in a disguised way duped the stakeholders and general public whose monies were at stake. The Committee of Directors failed to discharge their obligation and they were in hand-in-gloves with big corporate groups. They continued to refinance the big groups in connivance with their promoters, on the existing collateral or without sufficient security merely on personal guarantees being offered in order to avail the loans as also in re- financing - The default crisis in the IL&FS has adversely impacted the growth of Non-banking Finance Companies. It has jeopardised hundreds of investors, banks and mutual funds associated with IL&FS and sparked panic among equity investors, as several NBFC faced turmoil amid a default scare.
The applicant is not entitled for being released on bail and the application deserves to be rejected - Application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1333 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - Validity of summons issued - violation of the provisions contained in Section 160 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The respondent submits presence of the petitioners is being sought for seeking some queries from them and they have been summoned as witness(es) and the interest of justice shall suffice if the petitioners, all residents of Karnataka, in this pandemic situation, may be directed to join the enquiry through Video Conferencing. The date and timing of such Video Conferencing shall be shared by the investigating officer with the petitioners so that there should not be any inconvenience for anyone in joining such enquiry.
List on 19.11.2020 and in the meanwhile, petitioners shall cooperate in the enquiry through video conferencing and their personal appearance shall not be insisted upon till the next date of hearing.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1262 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - bail was sought on the medical grounds and also on the ground of his availability for the purpose of trial - HELD THAT:- The Chief Medical Officer of the Central Prison in her letter dated 18.2.2020 addressed to the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru, has noted about the actual ailments of the petitioner. The sessions court has observed while rejecting the bail application on 18.8.2020 that a six months old medical report cannot be acted upon. Whatever may be the observations of the Sessions Court, the report clearly says that the petitioner has been a diabetic since the year 2013, suffering from hyper tension since the year 2010 and has cardiac problem and has also been suffering from degenerative spondylosis since October 2018 - It is pertinent to note that the Chief Medical Officer has clearly made an observation about the chronic disease conditions of the petitioner. Therefore, certainly this aspect can be considered for granting bail.
Whether there is any chance of his fleeing away from India and thereby hampering the trial? - HELD THAT:- The answer should be definitely not because the petitioner has surrendered his passport. Investigation is over, it is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner is required for further investigation. Sri Madhukar Deshpande argued that accused No.9 is to be arrested and if the petitioner comes out of jail he may deviate the proceeds of crime. This apprehension can be obviated by subjecting the petitioner to conditions.
Petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a bond for ₹ 5,00,000/- and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall ascertain the whereabouts of the sureties before accepting the surety bonds - Bail granted subject to conditions imposed - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Interim Bail - precarious medical condition of the accused-applicant - HELD THAT:- As per the medical report which has been taken into consideration by the Delhi High Court while granting interim bail, it appears that the accused-applicant is required some surgical treatment for his ailment and, it would be appropriate to provide interim bail for medical treatment pending this bail application for final order.
Considering the medical health of the accused-applicant, Anil Kumar Sharma involved in Case No.ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2019 under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, P.S. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone is released on interim bail for six weeks or till he is recovered, whichever is earlier, from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court (P.M.L.A.), Lucknow to get himself treated at AIIMS, New Delhi - Application allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Release of attached properties - Attachment of immovable properties - continued attachment of the FDRs - concealment of proceeds of crime or not - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the present case, in its impugned order dated 26.07.2019, agreed with most of the contentions raised on behalf of Kamats and Alemaos and even concluded in para 78, that the properties attached in the matter are liable to be released 'in the light of the reasons stated in earlier paras'. However, instead of setting aside the attachment, the Tribunal issued a host of directions in para 79, perhaps not even contemplated under the PMLA, by simply observing that there is a need to strike a balance in these matters since the trial is pending before the Special Court - Once the Tribunal concluded that the attachment orders were liable to be set aside, it could not have avoided setting aside the same, by merely observing that there are allegations by the CBI against Kamats and Alemaos who are facing trial and therefore, in the name of striking balance, confirmed the attachment of the FDRs or imposed conditions for raising the attachment on the immovable properties. The directions issued by the Tribunal in its impugned order are this, quite contrary to its reasoning. The directions, therefore, are quite unsustainable in such circumstances.
On a plain reading of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the PMLA, it is apparent that the two predicates in clauses (a) and (b) have to be construed conjunctively and not disjunctively as suggested by Mr. Vaze, learned counsel for the ED. This means that the director or the authorized officer before he proceeds to make an order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, must have reason to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, not only any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime but further, such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with to frustrate confiscation proceedings under Chapter III of PMLA - reading the “and” which connects the two predicates in clauses (a) and (b) might even lead to an absurd position because it might imply that even though a person is not in possession of any proceeds of crime, he is nevertheless likely to conceal, transfer or deal with 'such proceeds of crime' to frustrate confiscation proceedings under Chapter III of PMLA. Further, if the expression “and” is construed as it stands, it is not as if some absurdity would result in the construction of Section 5(1) of the PMLA or the object of Section 5(1) of the PMLA would be frustrated or defeated. There is, according to us, nothing in the text or the context obliging the Court to read “and” as “or” simply because the Court, may, in certain circumstances, have the power to do so.
Therefore, based upon the supposed intention of the Legislature, the expression “and” which connects the predicates in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 5(1) of the PMLA cannot be read as “or”. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the Legislature intended to provisionally attach the proceeds of crime irrespective of whether or not there was any likelihood of such proceeds of crime being concealed, transferred, or dealt with to frustrate any confiscation proceedings under Chapter III of the PMLA. Rather, it appears that the Legislature intended to empower the director or the authorized officer to provisionally attach the proceeds of crime where such proceeds of crime were likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with to frustrate the confiscation proceedings. The Legislature was conscious that it was vesting the director or the authorized officer with such extraordinary powers in the teeth of the presumption of innocence and therefore, such extraordinary power was hedged with certain contentions which had to be cumulatively existent.
In the present case, analysis of the Joint Director’s order dated 30.03.2017 makes it clear that there are no reasons whatsoever recorded by the Joint Director in support of his alleged belief that the proceeds of crime were likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner by the Kamats or Alemaos to frustrate proceedings relating to the confiscation of such proceeds under Chapter III of the PMLA. The mere incantation that the officer had reason to believe that such proceeds of crime will be dealt with in a manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to the confiscation of such proceeds of crime, constitutes no compliance whatsoever with the predicates of clause (b) of Section 5(1) of the PMLA.
The statement made on behalf of the Appellants-Kamats that they will not sell, transfer, alienate, encumber or liquidate or encash the attached properties/FDRs and order until the conclusion of PMLA Case No.1/2018 pending before the Special Court at Mapusa and for one month thereafter, is hereby accepted. The Appellants-Kamats will have to abide by this statement - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Release of Provisional Attachment of properties/funds - relief prayed proceeds on the premise that the petitioner was a young boy and a student of Purdue University, Indiana, United States of America and, was in no manner connected with the commission of the scheduled offence or in possession of proceeds of crime and therefore, the attachment of his properties was illegal - HELD THAT:- In terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order 17.08.2020, the Adjudicating Authority, under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has finally adjudicated the provisional attachment orders No.02/2020 dated 18.02.2020 and 06/2020 dated 30.06.2020, vide their orders dated 21.09.2020 and 25.09.2020, respectively - It is an admitted position that the said orders dated 21.09.2020 and 25.09.2020 respectively, rendered by the Adjudicating Authority are appealable orders, in terms of the mandate of the provision Section 26 of PMLA Act.
The order dated 22.07.2020 impugned in the present appeal has been admittedly rendered otiose - Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 582 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disposal of representations dated 21.08.2018 by passing a reasonable and speaking order, within a reasonable time period that may be fixed by this Court - HELD THAT:- The interest of the petitioner is only private and if the same is a public interest, the locus will be tested in a different way. The term dual test is whether the petitioner is a person aggrieved, as admittedly, he is an advocate and had never traded with the NSE nor had suffered any loss on account of the alleged co-location service. The petitioner being a complete stranger, there is no cause of action for him to maintain a writ petition, much less, any cause of action that arose within the jurisdiction of this court to maintain a writ petition here. Therefore, on the ground of maintainability itself the petitioner has to be nonsuited.
Admittedly, there were issues when co-locations were introduced on 22.05.2017. The first show cause notice was issued by SEBI to NSE, to conduct an extraordinary investigation. Deloitte, a private independent professional agency was appointed and a report was filed and other private investigators were also engaged to find out whether any profits were made by the brokers. On 3.7.2018, a second show cause notice was issued and a full-fledged encquiry by SEBI was conducted. The enquiry was held from February 2019 to April 2019. On 30.04.2019, SEBI passed an order of imposing a disgorgement penalty of ₹ 624.00 Crores for certain failures for not having safeguards. However, no case was made out against NSE for fraud - NSE had preferred an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). Before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the appeal was also heard in length and reserved for orders on 05.03.2020. The petitioner also has impleaded himself in the appeal, besides filing an independent appeal. From the above, it is evident that the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of.
Section 6(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, mentions about the power of the Central Government to call for periodical reports or direct enquiries to be made. Already show cause notice was issued under Section 11 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. When the prayer in both the writ petitions, is to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018, and action has already been taken and that the SAT is seized of the matter and having reserved orders in the appeal, issuance of mandamus, is not warranted.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Recording of the ECIR - it is contended that the recording of the ECIR is itself bad in law since the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) has not followed the procedure prescribed under law, including the mandatory provisions of Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.
HELD THAT:- List on 14th October 2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of provisional order of attachment - statutory appeal before the first respondent, along with the petition for condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- This Court directs the appellate Tribunal/Prevention of Money Laundering, New Delhi, to accord priority and give disposal to petition and the connected petitions, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 200 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Money Laundering- proceeds of crime - It has been alleged that Sri Manoj Singh had acquired proceeds of crime and placed the said proceeds of crime in the form of fixed deposit and other deposits - HELD THAT:- In course of investigation by the Vigilance Bureau, it was detected that so far as the valuation of gold and diamonds are concerned, the jewellery was not physically taken to the Valuer, but instead the Valuer had given a back dated valuation report and in lieu thereof, he was given an amount of ₹ 1,26,042/-. Sri Ramesh Kumar Soni, the Valuer in his statement under Section 15 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has specifically stated about the valuation being made after the gold and diamonds were brought before him by the accused which is contrary to what has been stated by him before the Vigilance Bureau. In course of investigation, it has also come that the petitioner Manoj Kumar had submitted some invoices in support of his claim regarding sale of diamonds worth ₹ 8,17,21,664/- to one M/s. Star Traders, Mumbai/Surat which was a proprietorship firm of Raj Kumar Patodia. However, the income tax return does not indicate regarding the claim of Sri Manoj Kumar about the sale of diamonds as stated above. It has also come during course of investigation that the address of M/s. Star Traders has been given in the invoices submitted by Sri Manoj Kumar which is apparently false as there is no firm in existence in the name of M/s. Star Traders at Surat. In fact the son of Raj Kumar Patodia had denied being aware of any purchase of diamond or of the residential address of his father which had been provided by the petitioner – Manoj Kumar. In fact, with respect to the agricultural income for which reliance has been placed on various documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in course of investigation, the statements of several persons who were said to have purchased the agricultural produce have stated otherwise which also contradicts the claim of the petitioner – Manoj Kumar Singh regarding his explanation with respect to the income from agricultural produce.
An economic offence is a grave offence and considering the role played by the petitioner in which he had misused his position of being the Private Secretary of the then Speaker as well as the then Minister while amassing a huge wealth which is disproportionate to his known source of income and having miserably failed to submit any appropriate explanation for such income from the proceeds of crime, bail cannot be granted - The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected - the petitioners in B. A. No. 2806 of 2020 above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1030 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment order - assets in respect of which the said attachment order has been passed are certain fixed deposits - said fixed deposits are currently lying with the HDFC Bank - HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the amount, if frozen or attached, would continue to remain under the custody of the ED, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the said amount of ₹ 42,85,32,698.63/- from the provisionally attached bank account to be transferred to the account of the NHB by the HDFC Bank.
Remaining amounts provisional attachment order shall continue and the Petitioner would be free to agitate its pleas before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. Payment to the NHB shall be a pro-tem measure in the peculiar facts and shall abide by the final orders of the Adjudicating Authority. If the Adjudicating Authority finally determines that the said amount ought to be paid back to the ED, the NHB shall abide by the said order and shall re-deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks after the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority, subject to any orders passed by a superior court/tribunal. If refund is ordered by the adjudicating authority, no interest shall be payable by the NHB. Only the principal amount which is being transferred from the HDFC Bank to the NHB would be liable to be put back into the ED’s account.
Amount received from the HDFC Bank shall be credited by the NHB in the account of the Petitioner and if the Adjudicating Authority passes an order for re-deposit of the amount, the same shall be debited from the Petitioner’s account.
-
2020 (9) TMI 742 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment order - It is alleged that the police without any justification and cause have implicated the petitioner in a frivolous case on the basis of a disclosure statement made by one Mushfiq Ahmad Lone in FIR No.254 /2009 for offences under Section 120, 120-B, 121, 121/A RPC and 11, 18, 20 and 40A of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar - HELD THAT:- It is clear that whosoever, directly or indirectly, attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or is knowingly part or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime etc. etc. is guilty of offence of money laundering. The expressions used in the provision are “directly” and “knowingly assists”. These expressions convey that it is not necessary that proceeds of crime should have been actually and directly concealed, possessed, acquired or used by an offender. Even an indirect link or assistance in an activity connected with proceeds of crime constitutes an offence of money laundering. So the mere fact that the proceeds of crime in the instant case have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner does not mean that he has nothing to do with the amount that has been provisionally attached, particularly when there are allegations in the impugned order of Provisional Attachment that the petitioner was in league and in touch with other accused from whom the money was seized.
While confirming the Provisional Attachment Order, it is necessary that the above aspects of the case i.e. whether the petitioner was in any manner linked or associated with the co-accused, from whom the money was seized, are required to be gone into. This aspect of the matter involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Therefore, to say that the impugned shown cause notice has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority without jurisdiction does not hold any merit - the Adjudicating Authority was well within its jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice to the petitioner so as to offer him an opportunity to present his case qua the allegations leveled against him in the impugned Provisional Attachment Order.
The facts regarding possession of proceeds of crime or its use or concealment or its acquisition can be determined only after adjudicating the facts and circumstances and by verifying the documents and other relevant record. In the instant cases, there is material on record giving the Authorities reason to believe for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and other accused persons. Therefore, institution of the proceedings by the respondents under the provisions of the Act cannot be found fault with - The proceedings before the Authority under the Act are aimed at unearthing the truth relating to the offences under the Act. If the Authorities come to the conclusion that the offence under Money Laundering Act is made out, thereafter they can proceed against the offender while undertaking the process of investigation relating to truth or otherwise behind the allegation of money laundering. The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition so as to quash the entire proceedings. The Authorities under the Act must be allowed to investigate freely and fairly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act.
This Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present writ petition is premature and it raises complex issues of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in these proceedings in view of the fact that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the provisions of the Money Laundering Act - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 741 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - fraudulent high value forex outward remittances/transactions exceeding ₹ 3500 crores, taken place in the current accounts - outward remittances made without making corresponding imports into the domestic tariff area and without disclosing the beneficial owners inside the country and outside the country and end-use of the proceeds of crime in the other country - HELD THAT:- The petitioner have committed very serious offence in nature and there are ample chances to tamper the evidences and hamper the witnesses. Now the respondent laid charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Chennai and it is pending. This Court already dismissed the bail petition on two occasions and this Court does not find any change of circumstances to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no change of circumstances to consider the third bail petition of the petitioner. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 740 - ATPMLA
Grant of Order of Status Quo - provisional attachment order - Ad-interim stay of the operation of impugned order - Eviction notice - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the aforesaid appellants are either FIR or ECIR named accused and that there is no allegations against these appellants that the aforesaid amounts that have been paid to the builders are out of proceeds of crime and that it is not denied by the Respondent that the aforesaid amounts have not been paid by these appellants and that it is an admitted fact that the appellants are not physically residing in the aforesaid flats and the flats are under lock and key.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, justice would be served, at this stage, if the conditional order of status quo is passed with respect to the aforesaid properties. Both the parties are directed to maintain ‘status quo’ as on today till the next date of hearing.
List the stay applications alongwith the appeals on 27th November, 2020.
........
|
