|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 13 of 13 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 798
Money Laundering - Provisional attachment of bank accounts - Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- All the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the impugned provisional attachment order dated 05.05.2020 being specific for the amounts attached, the respective petitioners would be at liberty to operate their bank accounts mentioned in the impugned provisional attachment order subject to keeping a balance of the amount attached and that, this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to pass such further orders of attachment in accordance with law, as may be called for.
-
2020 (6) TMI 421
Grant of Bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - submissions of applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 07.01.2020 - HELD THAT:- The schedule offence was registered on 30.11.2007 by the CBI and the applicant co-operated in the aforesaid schedule offence and thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, CBI (Central), Lucknow on 06.10.2009, then the applicant surrendered before Special Judge, CBI (Central), Lucknow and he was released on bail on 15.12.2009, thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate registered the ECIR on 31.03.2010 and started investigation, but the applicant was not taken into custody under Section 19 of The Act and no Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 of The Act was issued by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the property related to the proceed of crime, his statement under Section 50 of The Act was recorded on different occasions and after eight years from the date of registering of ECIR, the complaint under Section 45 of The Act was filed on 28.09.2018 before the Sessions Judge/Special Judge PMLA, Lucknow, but merely on the basis of statement of the applicant and other accused persons, the complaint has been filed as no any statement of witness in support of the case as mentioned in para 4.5 etc. is annexed to the complaint and it was informed by the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement that all the witnesses will be called and examined before the trial court as the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2020 and the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 4 of The Act is seven years, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Vinod Kumar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing personal bond amounting to ₹ 3,00,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions imposed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 324
Money Laundering - allegation of depositing demonetized notes of more than ₹ 44 crores in accounts of various persons, including his own, and thereafter transferring it through RTGS into accounts of various other persons at Delhi and Kolkata, mostly in fictitious accounts - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is in fact the main player in the whole episode. It was submitted that he is the person who actually brought the demonetized cash to the Bank where it was allowed to be deposited in the accounts of others persons without their knowledge and subsequently, they were transferred through RTGS to other accounts. It was submitted that Shashi Kumar and Rajesh Kumar had given blank cheques to the Bank for being used in case they defaulted in the loan repayment and, having been given in good faith, were misused, in connivance with the Bank officials by using them for RTGS transfer from their accounts to various other accounts. It was submitted that under such circumstances, it was the petitioner who had laundered the demonetized illegal cash into legal cash through the mode of depositing it in connivance with the Bank officials and then getting the same transferred to various other accounts, most of which were fictitious.
The petitioner should not be enlarged on bail - application dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 309
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - alleged purchase of fleet of cars out of the ill-gotten money and received about ₹16 crores in one year from Shell companies for bribing/ fixing cases in income-tax department - Section 120B/420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) PC Act - Grant of Regular Bail.
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2020 (6) TMI 283
Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-I, Hyderabad, to entertain the appeal - Money Laundering - diversion of money - Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The issue sought to be raised including the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra. In a recent pronouncement, the Apex Court in M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS [2019 (12) TMI 188 - SUPREME COURT] has dealt with the same, which states that the jurisdiction of the NCLT delineated in Section 60(5) cannot be stretched so far as to bring absurd results.
Thus, the NCLT has got no jurisdiction to go into the matters governed under the PMLA - the proceedings have been initiated before the jurisdictional Court by the petitioner pursuant to the Final Report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. A mere fact that NCLT has been established now at Chennai would not be a ground to drive the petitioner to go on an appeal before it especially when arguments have been heard at length.
Considering the facts of the case and invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, we grant a further period of six weeks to respondents 1 and 3 to take appropriate action in accordance with law under the PMLA by exhausting the remedy provided therein - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 216
Money Laundering - interplay between Section 306, and Section 308, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - revocation of the tender of pardon - HELD THAT:- The Certificate, of the Public Prosecutor, in the present case, does not allege that, before the Court, the respondent concealed anything essential, or gave false evidence. In fact, a holistic reading of the application, filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, reveals that the grievance of the petitioner is, essentially, that the respondent has not cooperated during investigation, and has withheld material in his possession. Mr. Handoo is right when he contends that non-co-operation, during investigation, is not one of the circumstances contemplated, by Section 308 (1), as justifying issuance of certificate by the Public Prosecutor. Quite obviously, this is because the condition, whereunder pardon is granted to the accomplice, is candour before the court, and not candour before the investigating officer. Non-cooperation with the investigative process, therefore, is irrelevant, insofar as Section 308 (1) is concerned.
The grounds, urged in the application of the petitioner, preferred before the learned Special Judge did not, therefore, make out a case for issuance of Certificate under Section 308 (1), by the Public Prosecutor. The learned Special Judge, therefore, rightly chose not to “revoke the pardon” extended to the respondent, on the basis of the said averments.
One of the serious apprehensions, voiced by the learned ASG, was that, as a consequence of the impugned order of the learned Special Judge, the prosecution would be compelled to lead the evidence of the respondent, even after having found him to be an untrustworthy witness. This apprehension, in my view, cannot be said to rest on any sound factual, or legal, basis. Factually, the apprehension is unfounded, as the learned Special Judge has not rejected the application, of the petitioner, on merits, but has dismissed it as premature, as no statement, of the respondent-approver, was recorded during trial. Liberty has been reserved, even in the impugned order, with the petitioner, to move an appropriate application, at the appropriate stage. It cannot, therefore, be said that, by operation of the impugned order, the petitioner has been compelled to use the evidence of an untrustworthy witness. Legally, too, this apprehension cannot sustain.
Before the recording of his statement under Section 306 (4) of the Cr PC, the application, of the petitioner, as preferred before him, was not maintainable - the issuance of certificate, by the Public Prosecutor, under Section 308 (1), Cr PC, had to be necessarily preceded by the recording of the statement of the approver, under Section 306 (4).
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 116
Prayer for deposit of amounts deposited in the accounts opened in HDFC and DCB - HELD THAT:- I take on record the submission made by Mr. Jain, on instructions from Mr. Mahajan that the order passed by this Court on May 13, 2020 with regard to the payment of salary to the employees, has been complied with - The statement made by Mr. Luthra for not withdrawing the amounts deposited in the accounts opened in HDFC and DCB shall continue till the next date of hearing.
List on 26th May, 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 115
Freezing of petitioner's Bank Accounts - permission to petitioner to pay the salaries to the employees for the month of April, 2020 by encashing FDRs of equivalent amounts - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is permitted to furnish to the respondents within 24 Hrs., list of the employees to whom the salaries have to be paid for the month of April, 2020. Respondents shall verify the list and convey their approval and objection, if any, with regard to any name, within 24 Hrs. of the receipt of the list from the petitioner. They shall send a communication to the Banks forthwith to enable the petitioner pay salary to its employees for the month of April, 2020, by operating / encashing the FDRs of the equivalent amount, (equivalent to the salaries to be paid to the employees). The petitioner is permitted to deposit the TDS and connected statutory dues (if any) with the authorities. That apart, petitioner is also permitted to open one account each in HDFC Bank and DCB respectively.
The monies received by the petitioner from the lenders / customers shall be deposited in these accounts. The petitioner shall not withdraw any amount from the said accounts till the next date of hearing.
List on May 20, 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 92
Grant of Anticipatory bail - case of petitioner is that the Accused petitioner was not even made an accused in the original case emanating from FIR No. 251/2015 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau against other co-accused persons - HELD THAT:- Perusal of material on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially to the fact that revision petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the trial court, has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, similarly situated co-accused have already surrendered before the trial court and looking to the fact that accused petitioner is involved in serious economic offence involving huge sum of money and keeping in mind the principle of law enunciated by Hon’ble apex court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not deem it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused petitioner on anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 91
Grant of Bail - Money Laundering - Scheduled offences - allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner amazed huge amount of movable and immovable property from his criminal activity in connection with twenty-six criminal cases against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence or be non-co-operative in the trial. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT], the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The main object is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is applicable in this matter.
Considering the entire facts aforesaid, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 75,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case.
-
2020 (6) TMI 90
Vires of Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - amendment in section 45 - applicability of decision in the case of NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] where the Supreme Court has declared Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - amendment in section 45, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision, in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah.
Whether the amendment introduced in Section 45 of the Act, by Act No. 13 of 2018, shall amount to re-framing the entire Section 45 and thereby reviving and resurrecting the requirement of twin conditions under sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act for grant of bail?
HELD THAT:- In view of clear language used in paragraph 46 of the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah, there is no hesitation in reaching a definite conclusion that the amendment in sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act introduced after Supreme Court’s decision in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah does not have the effect of reviving the twin conditions for grant of bail, which have been declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
There are no force in submission made on behalf of Union of India that a different view has been taken in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] by the Supreme Court than the view taken in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah on the question of constitutional validity of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act. There is no discussion in this regard in the said judgment in case of P. Chidambaram . The application for anticipatory bail in case of P. Chidambaram was rejected on merits of the allegation and other materials.
Merits of the case - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is the widow of deceased younger brother of the main accused Ashok Kumar Yadav against whom there are 26 criminal cases and in course of investigation carried out against him in respect of commission of offence under the Act, it emerged that he had purchased properties in the name of the petitioner and her deceased husband to the tune of ₹ 5,66,000/-. Further, a sum of ₹ 6,95,000/- has been allegedly deposited in the savings bank account of the petitioner by the said accused Ashok Kumar Yadav. In addition, a sum of ₹ 2,99,500/- is lying in the account of the deceased husband of the petitioner.
Considering the nature of allegation, a case of grant of anticipatory bail is made out - Application allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 89
Money Laundering - Freezing of petitioner's Bank Account - proceeds of crime - Permission to pay the salaries to the employees for the month of April, 2020 by encashing FDRs of equivalent amounts - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are permitted: (a) to discharge their liabilities towards salaries, bonus and reimbursements payable to their employees; (b) to make payments towards provident fund, professional tax, TDS on salaries and TDS on non-salary payouts from the bank accounts (including fixed deposits) that are subject matter of action by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, subject to verification by the concerned respondents of the list of employees and the amounts due (towards all heads of permitted payouts), for which purpose the petitioners shall furnish to respondent No. 3 a list of employees to whom salaries/bonus/reimbursements are required to be paid, to enable the respondents to verify the same, which verification will be done by the respondents with 7 days of such list being furnished. Payouts are being permitted only towards the above heads/ purposes and not any of the other heads indicates/tabulated in the petitions.
If the respondents have any doubt as to the employee/s and/or the dues payable, they shall communicate the same to the petitioners ; and no disbursement shall be made by the petitioners to such employee and/or of such amount.
List on 20th May 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 64
Money Laundering - Release of petitioner on bail - loans to shell companies and related known entities - siphoning of funds - HELD THAT:- It is essential to observe that during the course the hearing of the present proceedings, it was suo moto by this Court brought to the notice of both the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Rahul Mehra that in Writ Petition Civil Diary No.10829/2020 vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner thereof who had challenged the criterion of the Hon’ble High Powered Committee of this Court dated 28.03.2020 putting an embargo to the release on interim bail/ parole of under trials in cases of alleged commission of economic offences and whereby vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said writ petition thus granted the prayer of the petitioner thereof to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to prefer a representation before the Hon’ble High Powered Committee of this Court.
Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that merely because another litigant had withdrawn the prayer made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court submitting in relation to the alleged arbitrariness of the criteria laid down by the Hon’ble High Powered Committee in relation to the economic offences, the same cannot apply qua the submissions made by the petitioner, nevertheless, it is essential to observe that in as much as there are allegations against the petitioner of the alleged commission of economic offences inter alia punishable under the PMLA Act, 2002 as also punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Application declined.
|
