Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering 2021 2021 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Money Laundering - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 196 Records

• 2021 (10) TMI 705 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - reasons to believe possession of proceeds of crime or not - attachment of residential properties - sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- We have refrained from delving into the factual narrative as stated in the impugned order of provisional attachment. This is so because we are of the opinion that when the matter is at the stage of adjudication under section 8 of the PMLA Act and adjudication hearing is fixed on 27th October, 2021, we should allow the statutory authority to deal with the matter in accordance with the statute.

  Of course the point of law raised by Mr.Nankani without adverting to the facts of the present case is an important one and as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Seema Garg [2020 (3) TMI 460 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] is certainly a matter which requires attention of the adjudicating authority. The other aspect which has also caught our attention is that the properties attached are much more valuable than the alleged proceeds of crime stated to have been in possession of the petitioners.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 489 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - siphoning of funds - fake transactions - shell/dummy entities incorporated to perpetuate the fraud - HELD THAT:- Both the petitioners are said to be erstwhile directors of M/s. VMC Systems Limited, which was in the business of manufacture and sale of electronic products, with specific focus on AC-DC power convertors and communication products. A huge amount of about ₹ 1747.45 crores has been laundered/siphoned and that lead to registration of subject FIR No.15 of 2018 on the file of CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore. There are serious and grave allegations against the petitioners that they have indulged in money laundering offences by resorting to various dubious transactions in between the companies, involving the shell/dummy entities incorporated to perpetuate the fraud and siphoned the amounts.

  In view of huge magnitude of conspiracy angle and possible involvement of the petitioners herein and pending their interrogation, granting any sort of relief, including anticipatory bail, to the petitioners would disable the respondent/ prosecution from further proceeding to trace the proceeds of crime and attaching it provisionally under Section 5(1) of PML Act, which is the basic objective of the said Act. In view of the serious allegations, thorough investigation and interrogation is warranted. It is also pertinent to state that in the event of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, it may not be possible for the respondent/prosecution to trace the proceeds of the crime and take necessary action in terms of Section 5(1) of the PML Act.

  While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations - In the instant cases, grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the petitioners/accused and in collecting the useful information and also the material, which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would escape, if the petitioners/accused knows that they are protected by the order of the Court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation.

  This Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 244 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts - provisions for automatic or deemed extension of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 (1) of PMLA Act present or not - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating authority/Respondent No. 2 cannot be called a litigant or advocate or a quasi-judicial authority and cannot take the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court passed in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 [2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] by taking the stand that on the expiry of validity of the said provisional attachment order after 180 days under Section 5 (3) of the aforesaid Act, the same would be deemed to have been extended automatically by virtue of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when he was not required to pass any formal order of extension of the same under Section 8 (3) of the aforesaid Act.

  The impugned order of provisional attachment of bank accounts and postal accounts in question of the petitioner, which has expired its validity on 9th June, 2021, has no force after expiry of 180 days from the date of passing of such order in view of not passing any formal order under Section 8 (3) of the said Act extending the validity of the same by the Respondent No. 2 and the action of Respondent No. 3 in not allowing the petitioner to operate its bank and postal accounts in question after the expiry of the period validity of 180 days from the date of the order passed under Section 5 (1) of the aforesaid Act, such action of the Respondent Enforcement authority, is arbitrary and illegal.

  This Writ Petition is allowed by declaring that the impugned order of provisional attachment of Bank accounts and postal accounts in question dated 11th December, 2019 passed under Section 5 (1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after expiry of 180 days on 9th June, 2021 is ceased to have any effect or force as a consequence of failure on the part of the Respondent Enforcement authority/Adjudicating authority in passing further order under Section 8 (3) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 extending or confirming order dated 11th December, 2020 under Section 5 (1) of the said Act on or before 9th June, 2021 after expiry of its validity under Section 5 (3) of the said Act by taking the stand of automatic deemed extension/confirmation of the said order by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra) by claiming itself as a litigant or advocate or quasi-judicial authority when it was not required to approach physically any quasi-judicial or judicial authority to initiate any proceeding or to file any application/suit/appeal for the purpose of extension or confirmation of the order under Section 5 (1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 239 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Bail - money laundering - scheduled offences - enjoying proceeds of crime in personal benefits - Section 120-B/294/341/406/409/420/467/ 468/471/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5 of the Pries Cheat and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1976 - Section 45 of PML Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the Petitioner is inside custody since 16th October, 2017 which means he has already incarcerated more than three years and 10 months. Apart from this, admittedly, the Petitioner is languishing in custody from 30th May, 2013 in connection with Kharavela Nagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 and subsequent registration of the CBI case.

  The instant case is concerning offences under the PMLA Act. So keeping in view the restrictions contained in Section 45 of the PMLA Act for grant of bail as well as the nature of allegations and the amount involved in the commission of offence which is more than 300 crores, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to be released on bail.

  Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 201 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Legality of arrest - validity in terms of A. 22 (2) of Constitution of India r/w s. 57 CrPC - application moved by the petitioner herein to declare the arrest of the petitioner as illegal was dismissed without any reason - what is the time of arrest of petitioner is 8:30 PM of 03.08.2021 or 7:55 PM of 03.08.2021? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the search started on 03.08.2021 in the premises of the petitioner at 8:30 AM and it continued till afternoon uptil 3 o’clock and thereafter the petitioner was taken to office of respondent for recording of his statement. It was recorded till 7.55 PM when he was arrested. He was then produced on 04.08.2021 at about 4 PM before the learned Court. The question is whether he was produced before Court within 24 hours of his arrest.

  Deepak Mahajan [1994 (1) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT], Roshan Biwi [1983 (11) TMI 290 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Harbhajan Singh [1968 (12) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] all in unison clarify the custody and arrest are not synonymous. In every arrest there is always a custody but in every custody there may not be arrest. Even otherwise, if one look at the scheme of PMLA it shows arrest needs to be made only under Section 19(1) of the Act after completion of process under Section 17(1) and 18(1) and the accused is to be produced before the concerned court within 24 hours of his arrest under Section 19(1).

  The arrest is only under Section 19(1) of the Act after the formalities under Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) are complete viz. the search and seizure is made and the officer has in his possession the material to proceed further. Once the person is arrested under Section 19(1) he needs to be produced before the Special Court within twenty four hours per Section 19(3) of the Act. Section 19(3) rather clarifies it is only after the arrest is made under Section 19(1), the person needs to be produced within twenty four hours before the Court.

  Admittedly, in this petition there is no challenge to this scheme of the Act hence the petitioner cannot allege his arrest made by following the above procedure is illegal. Admittedly per facts, the officers on the basis of information per Section 17(1) had entered the building at 8.30 AM; conducted search per Section 18(1) till 3 PM and recorded statements till 7.55 PM and then arrested him per Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner was thus produced within 24 hours before the court from the time of his arrest under Section 19(1) of the Act, per Section 19(3) of the Act.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Acute shortage of staff members as also vacancies at the level of the Chairperson, Member (Administration) and Member (Law) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that benches of the Adjudicating Authority hold hearings, and the quantum of cases is considerable, it is not sufficient to merely fill up the vacancies as they exist today, but there is also a need to increase the manpower within the Adjudicating Authority, in order to enable the authority to function in an efficient manner.

  Insofar as the Chairperson is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, ld. CGSC, under instructions from Mr. Pandey, that the selection for the Chairperson is underway and is likely to conclude shortly - For the positions of Member (Administration) and Member (Law), the proposal for issuance of vacancy circulars is stated to be under consideration. Since these positions have been vacant for a considerable period of time, the Government is directed to take steps for filling up the said posts, within a period of three months.

  Insofar as the Administrative Officer and Registrar are concerned, in view of the recommendations of the UPSC, as also the lack of a sufficient number of applicants, it appears that appointments have not taken place despite the vacancy circulars having been issued - if these vacancies cannot be filled up through fresh recruitment, the Ministry shall take steps to fill up all these vacancies through alternate means, within a period of one month from today.

  Let a fresh status report be filed in this regard, within a period of two months - List for conclusion of submissions in all these petitions on 30^th September, 2021 at 3:30 pm.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 1469 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - property purchased in the name of the company was acquired out of the proceeds of crime as defined in Section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA, 2005 - HELD THAT:- On admission of the writ petition and granting an order of Interim stay, notice was given to the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement and he entered appearance on 13.03.2012. Further, it is evident that the Directorate of Enforcement had knowledge about the interim order of stay. In spite of the stay order, the Deputy Director filed original complaint in O.C.No.129 of 2012 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority on 15.03.2012. Further, in the original complaint, the Deputy Director did not make the Indian bank as a party as interested party in the property.

  The provision of Section 8(2) of the PMLA Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to hear the interested party i.e., the Indian bank. Unfortunately, the Adjudicating Authority, without impleading and ordering notice to the Indian Bank, confirmed the attachment by an order 26.06.2012 during the pendency of the Writ Petitions and during the operation of the stay order.

  The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that any proceeding initiated, conducted or concluded in violation of an order of interim stay or injunction is non-est in the eye of law and the Adjudicating Authority should have waited till the disposal of the writ petitions or till the order of stay passed by this court is vacated. The action of the Adjudicating Authority despite having the knowledge of interim order of stay is clearly in defiance of the said interim order of stay. Therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated and even the order dated 26.06.2012 passed during the pendency of the writ petitions shall be illegal and liable to be set aside as null and void.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 1446 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Provisional attachment order - the said order elapsed after the expiry of the 180-day period, i.e. in June, 2021 itself - Section (5(1) r/w Section 5 (3) and Section 8 (3) of the Prevention of PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the Division Bench is already seized of the question as to whether the 180-days validity period of provisional attachment orders, as contemplated under Sections 5(1), 5(3) r/w Section 8(3) of the PMLA, 2002 has to be treated as sacrosanct in the light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 [2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] extending the period of limitation on account of COVID 19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown.

  In the present case, though the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority ought to be permitted to continue and culminate in a final order, the said order ought not to be implemented till the question of law pending before the learned Division Bench is finally decided in LPA No. 362/2020.

  It is, accordingly, directed that while the Adjudicating Authority will be at liberty to conclude the adjudication proceedings, in which, the petitioner will render its full cooperation; and the final order, as and when passed by the Adjudicating Authority, will not be implemented without the leave of the Court - List on 15.12.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 1407 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Continuation of Provisional Attachment order beyond the period of 180 days - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Hon’ble Single Bench has expressed its desire to ultimately adjudicate the issue on the strength of affidavits directed to be exchanged by the parties - it is observed that the Hon’ble Single Bench has further directed that any decision taken by the adjudicating authority, if against the writ petitioner/the appellant, shall abide by the result of the writ petition.

  Having regard to the interim directions, this Court find no reason to intervene in the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench except, to request the Hon’ble Single Bench, to expedite the hearing of the writ petition, subject to its convenience - application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 1360 - SC ORDER
  

  Seeking grant of bail - Sessions Court granted bail to the petitioner on medical grounds by taking note of the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act - After a detailed consideration of the report of the medical board, the High Court was of the considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of permanent bail. However, temporary bail for two months was granted to enable the petitioner to receive treatment for his ailments.

  HELD THAT:- There is no error committed by the High Court in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions Court. However, taking note of the submissions made by Mr. Luthra about the treatment of the petitioner, we grant temporary bail to the petitioner for a period of four months from today.

  It is made clear that no application for extension of bail shall be entertained by this Court. The temporary bail granted to the petitioner is subject to the conditions that were imposed by the High Court in its Order dated 05.05.2021 - SLP disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 1283 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of stay on arrest warrants - Money Laundering - non-speaking order - issuance of non-bailable warrants for the appearance of petitioners - offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act - HELD THAT:- Without commenting upon detailed merits of the cognizance order, it would suffice to hold that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any prima facie case for staying the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken against them.

  Looking to the various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that severity of the offence for which a cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and other relevant factors, the trial court has discretion to issue non-bailable warrants. Keeping in mind that the cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under the PML Act against the petitioners, which is an economic offence and Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that such offences need to be treated on a different footing. Also keeping in mind the provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act, at this stage it cannot be held that the learned trial court has committed any legal error in passing the order of issuance of non-bailable warrants.

  The petitioners have not been able to prima facie make out any case for staying the arrest warrants directed to be issued against them - Stay application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 671 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Revival of twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA after having been declared as unconstitutional - parallel provision to Section 482 Cr.P.C. or not - limitation imposed on civil powers existed in Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Section 362 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The reliance placed by the applicant/petitioner on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY [2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SUPREME COURT] as well as STATE OF PUNJAB AND SUMEDH SINGH SAINI VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC. [2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] is to state that inherent powers of the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. are saved by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. but in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY [2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SUPREME COURT] the petitioner was ex parte/not heard and STATE OF PUNJAB AND SUMEDH SINGH SAINI VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC. [2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] rather carved out certain exceptions to the operation of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. as quoted below:

  i. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice; or

  ii. Where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it; or

  iii. Where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction.

  The above exceptions, in no way apply to the facts of the present case and hence the present application is not maintainable in light of the express bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 661 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - seeking grant of regular bail - conspiracy - creating false and forged documents for the purpose of cheating and used the said false documents as genuine knowing fully well as false and made transactions in various banks fraudulently - satisfaction of condition of twin limitation for grant of bail u/s 45 (1) of PMLA Act - HELD THAT:- This Court without going into merits of the case, taking into consideration the factors that the petitioner has been languishing in jail from the last 360 days, petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered before the Court below in the year 2019, other accused were already enlarged on bail and the health condition of petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period one month on certain conditions.

  The petitioner shall be enlarged on interim bail for a period of one month i.e. from 08.09.2021 to 07.10.2021 (both days inclusive) on his executing a bond for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Visakhapatnam. On such release, the petitioner shall not leave the country and shall not tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses - Post this matter on 05.10.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 478 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Applicability of application u/s 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. - accused is released from the ‘custody’ or not - decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] has lost its significance because of amendment in Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act or not - irrelevant material acted upon or not - relevant material ignored or not?

  Whether Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can have no application unless accused is released from the ‘custody’? - HELD THAT:- The instant application filed by the prosecution under Section 439(2) is maintainable, although the accused actually has not been released. Primary objection as to the maintainability is overruled.

  Whether decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] has lost its significance because of amendment in Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act? - HELD THAT:- In Nikesh T. Shah, the Hon’ble Apex Court has struck down Section 45 of the PMLA Act, as a whole having found it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and not just applicability of twin conditions to scheduled offences - Once, it is held that twin conditions enumerated under Section 45 of the PMLA Act have no application while granting bail to accused of money laundering, it is to be ascertained, whether the trial Court granted bail on irrelevant considerations.

  Whether Trial Court while granting bail, acted upon the irrelevant material and ignored the relevant material? - HELD THAT:- The prosecution case rests and founded on documentary evidence and, therefore, even if applicant is released on bail, chances of tampering the prosecution evidence are weak and faint. Apart from that, it is worthwhile recording here that NSEL Management, Persons, Defaulters of NSEL and persons associated with Aastha Group (Mohit Aggarwal and Sham Kejriwal) have been granted bail either by Special Court or by the High Court, having a greater role than the present applicant. Mr. Chavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, has placed for my perusal, orders granting bail to twenty co-accused, who may have similar or greater role than the present accused. Even otherwise offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act is offence punishable upto seven years - the trial Court while granting bail to respondent-accused has not acted upon the irrelevant material and ignored the relevant material.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 370 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Provisional attachment of immovable properties - scheduled offences under para ‘A’ of the schedule to the PML Act - proceeds of crime - recovery of cash amount form residential premises - equitable relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court - Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have not challenged the show-cause notice and are only seeking to challenge the provisional attachment order. The reason assigned by the petitioners is that the present challenge was filed before this Court on 28th April, 2021 i.e. much prior to the show-cause notice dated 17th June, 2021 and thus, the same will remains alive inspite of the show-cause notice.

  The petitioners cannot thwart the due process of law and halt the investigation under the guise of raising insignificant things. We have already discussed the scheme of the PML Act. The petition has been filed on mere issuance of the provisional attachment order dated 9th April, 2021 under Section 5 of the PML Act. The respondent has filed original complaint on 7th May, 2021 in the present provisional attachment order. The said order is required to be confirmed by the adjudicating authority constituted under Section 6 of the Act. The authority has had after receipt of the complaint issued show-cause notice requiring the party to file their reply. The order which would be passed by the adjudicating authority is appealable one under Section 26 of the PML Act before the appellate Tribunal - The petitioners are required to be relegated to the concerned authorities as prima facie it appears that the authorities are proceeding by following due process of law.

  The petitions are devoid of merits and looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they are not entitled to seek any equitable relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - predicate offence - alleged irregularities in the utilization of funds of Government of India - pre-trial detention of the accused-applicant - Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against several persons - HELD THAT:- The twin conditions as imposed by Section 45 of PMLA cannot be looked into while deciding the bail/anticipatory bail application as the same are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in different decisions held that economic offences constitute a class apart, the Court need to visit the same with a different approach in the matter of bail/anticipatory bail and should be loathed while extending the benefit of bail/pre-arrest bail to a person accused of such offences.

  In the instant case, during the course of investigation under the PMLA, 2002, searches were conducted under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 at the office, factory and residential premises of Naresh Grover, Director of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd. During these searches several incriminating documents were seized. These documents included letters written by Naresh Grover, who was in judicial custody at that time, to his son Pankaj Grover directing him to manipulate the accounts and records to defeat the allegation of supply of material under NRHM Scheme at astronomical rates of profit as well as of short supply of the said material - the fact that Naresh Grover had directed Pankaj Grover in writing not to submit the original invoices and the ledgers of the sundry creditors and debtors to the ED as well as to manipulate the records of the genuine creditors with other fictitious entries establishes that he was wilfully and knowingly trying to frustrate the proceedings under the Act and was also attempting to deflect the process of investigation

  In socio-economic offences proceed of crimes are larger and further, offenders are economically sound, therefore, in releasing them on bail/anticipatory bail probability of abscondance not within country but beyond country is more probable. Usually socio-economic offenders abscond to some other country and after that it becomes difficult to bring them back and complete the criminal proceeding against them. Further, their monetary sound condition particularly proceed of crime obtained not by honest working but by deceiving others causes more prone situation for influencing witnesses and other evidences. Furthermore, status and position of offender provides opportunity to influence investigation and prosecution - this Court finds no merit in the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant.

  The instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

  ---

• 2021 (8) TMI 1406 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of bail - issue of forged cheques - entire case is based on documentary evidence which have already been seized by the police, therefore, there is no question of tempering with any evidence - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, there are glaring irregularities and illegalities in the purchase of the land belonging to the society by the present applicant in a criminal conspiracy with unauthorised persons. It is not in dispute that the entire sale-consideration was not paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed , eve till date and thereafter the applicant has mortgaged the land in question and took the loan of Rs.7.5 Crores and the same has also not been repaid.

  In the city of Indore, the local administration is trying hard to get the lands released from the hands of land mafias. Several hardcore land mafias have been arrested by the police by registering FIRs against them. The administration is making all efforts for the release of the lands to innocent purchasers and members who have invested their hard-earned money with a dream to construct a house . In the present case, if the applicant is released on bail, it will give setback to the efforts which are being done by the Government as well as the local administration for release of the land in favour of members of the society.

  This is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage - bail application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (8) TMI 1242 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Freezing of petitioner's Bank account - allegations of corruption and laundering - ED proceeded in accordance with the statutory provisions including Section 60 while conducting the Search & seizure operations - while issuing the show cause, the “reasons to believe” was not provided - HELD THAT:- It is considered appropriate to direct the ld. counsels appearing for the ED to seek instructions as to whether they can provide the requisite documents to the Petitioners - If any of the documents are available with the ED, the same shall be placed on record in a sealed cover with the Court on 20th August, 2021. If any of the documents are not available with the ED, the Court shall be informed accordingly.

  List this matter for further hearing on 23rd August, 2021.

  ---

• 2021 (8) TMI 1176 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Attachment of property - proceeds of crime - first right or claim over the properties - HELD THAT:- The finding recorded is that the attached properties are not proceeds of crime. Mr. Vyas, the learned ASG is prima facie right in his submission that this particular finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal would put an end to the criminal complaint filed by the appellant under the PMLA.

  It can be suggested that the Bank and the appellant may jointly put the properties to auction and try to fetch a good price. If successful in this exercise, then the amount shall neither go to the Bank nor shall go to the appellant, but we may ask them to deposit the entire amount with the Registry of this Court or we may ask them to open an Escrow Bank Account and deposit the same. We shall decide above the precedence once the auction is successful.

  Post this matter on 06.09.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (8) TMI 779 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - power of Directorate of Enforcement to declare any property acquired by proceeds of crime - Section 5(4) of the PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- A person who is interested relating to any immovable property or is claiming or is entitled to claim any interest in the property would be free to enjoy the said immovable property even if the same is attached.

  If the property is confiscated by the Central Government, such claimant with legitimate interest in the property or who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of offence of money laundering may move appropriate application for restoration of such confiscated property or a part thereof - so far as interested person or any claimant is concerned, they did not have any locus to challenge the attachment order at all. While the statute protects them in some way but they have no say in respect to attachment which is essentially against the person who has procured the property by proceeds of crime. If such subsequent purchaser or interested person as explained under Section 5(4) is allowed to challenge the attachment, it would not only create a chaotic situation but it can be a method of subterfuge litigation by the main accused in getting himself let off in case relating to money laundering.

  The present petition filed by the interested persons to challenge the attachment order is found to be not maintainable as they did not have any locus standi to the said aspect - petition dismissed.

  ---

1234567........ 10