|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 342 Records
-
2023 (9) TMI 963
Fugitive economic offender - requirements of section 297 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Criminal Manual issued by the Bombay High Court complied with or not - HELD THAT:- The Deputy Director is very specific about his knowledge and it is mentioned in the verification that whatever was stated in the said application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge derived from the records. Section 297 of Cr.P.C. mentions that the deponent making the affidavit shall separately state such facts as he was able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the case of his belief, he has to state the grounds of such belief. In the present case, the verification mentions that the application is filed to the best of the deponent’s knowledge derived from the records.
Section 21 of the FEO Act gives an overriding effect to the FEO Act and therefore even as per Section 5 of Cr.P.C. and also as per Section 21 of the FEO Act, the special procedure prescribed under the FEO Act will not get affected by any provision under Cr.P.C.
All the requirements under Section 4 of the FEO Act and under Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are properly complied with in this case - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the application is rejected.
-
2023 (9) TMI 725
Money Laundering - predicate offence or not - no crime proceeds were generated in favour of the venture company - allegation against this petitioner is that he helped Mantena Srinivas Raju, but, the case against said Mantena Srinivas Raju in ECIR was also quashed by this Court - HELD THAT:- It cannot be disputed that the person who is not charged under the predicate offence cannot be investigated into under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Any person dealing with the proceeds of crime in any manner whatsoever comes within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
The Honourable Supreme Court while cancelling the bail of this petitioner has not referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] - It was concluded by the 3-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chudhary’s case, that if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of a scheduled offence or the criminal case, is quashed by the court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
As already discussed, the petitioner is being investigated for taking benefits from Mantena Srinivas. The said person was acquitted of the predicate offence and the proceedings against him in the present ECIR were also quashed on the ground that there were no criminal proceeds. In the said circumstances when there are no “criminal proceeds”, following the law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudary’s case this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 662
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - illegal sale of coal - HELD THAT:- Section 45 of the PMLA, which contains certain restrictions on the Courts’ power to grant bail, does not contain any provision saving the special powers to grant bail conferred upon the High Courts by Section 439 Cr.P.C., whereas Section 44 of the PMLA, which confers jurisdiction for trial of offences under the Act upon Special Courts and which does not contain any provision which may affect the powers of any Court regarding grant of bail, provides that nothing contained in Section 44 shall affect the High Court’s special powers regarding bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - It appears that the provision contained in Section 44 (2) of PMLA saving special powers of the High Courts regarding grant of bail was meant to be incorporated in Section 45 of the Act, but it has erroneously been placed just above Section 45.
The aforesaid Acts deal with heinous offences like hijacking of aero planes, unlawful acts against safety of civil aviation, maritime piracy, unlawful acts against safety of maritime navigation and fixed platforms on continental shelf, and offences relating to manufacture and sale of adulterated or spurious drugs, which would affect a very large number of population, and the offences carry punishment upto death. All the Acts contain restrictions of Courts’ power to grant bail to an accused person, which are similar to the restriction provided in Section 45 (1) and (2) of PMLA. All the acts provide that the aforesaid restrictions can be waved by the Special Courts in case of a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, like the provision contained in the proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PMLA.
The restriction contained in Section 45 of PMLA that bail cannot be granted to a person accused of an offence under the PMLA without recording a prima facie satisfaction of innocence of the applicant, is not applicable to the Constitutional Courts in view of the harmonious interpretation of Sections 44 and 45 of PMLA and, therefore, irrespective of the fate of the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court need not record a prima facie satisfaction of innocence of the applicants.
No proceeds of crime have been recovered from the applicant Ramji Singh and the only allegation against the applicant is that he was indirectly involved in the activity of abetment with regard to generation of proceeds of crime, and even as per the complaint, there is no allegation of his direct involvement in commission of any offence. Meanwhile the applicant Ramji Singh has attained the age of 72 years and obviously he has retired long ago and he does not appear to be in a position to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Having retired, there appears no reasonable apprehension of the applicant Ramji Singh indulging in commission of a similar offence after grant of anticipatory bail to him.
All the orders granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants deserve to be confirmed and the applications deserve to be allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 661
Money Laundering - Justifiability of the issuance of NBW against the petitioners - no reasons given for such issuance - appellant entered into criminal conspiracy and committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery etc. and invested the proceeds of crime generated thereby in assets standing in their names - HELD THAT:- No reason whatsoever was cited by the Court below to direct issuance of NBW. The reasons cited by Mr. Agarwal (opposite party) to justify issuance of NBW such as, gravity of the economic offences etc. have not been referred to by the Court below itself. To such extent therefore, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court cited by Mr. Agarwal would have no application to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case.
This Court is of the view that given the absence of the accused persons and non-taking of the steps on their behalf, the Court below ought to have issued a bailable warrant of arrest since there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused persons have been deliberately avoiding to appear before the Court. The impugned order is thus rendered unsustainable in the eye of law warranting interference - Application allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 660
Money Laundering - illegal arrest - Reasons for arrest of the accused are not supported with any justifiable material - transfer of funds to the subsidiary and associated entities - fake entities - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji [2023 (8) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that there is no need of compliance of Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. However, as on the date of the impugned order dated 14.06.2023, the Designated Court is not having benefit of going through the said judgment and relying on the principle laid down in Satender Kumar Antil [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT] the Designated Court rejected the remand of the respondents vide impugned order dated 14.06.2023.
The Apex Court in Senthil Balaji categorically held that Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. has got no application to an arrest made under the PMLA. The said judgment was rendered by the Apex Court on 07.08.2023, whereas the impugned order is dated 14.06.2023. Therefore, the Designated Court is not having benefit of going through the said order, and consider the said aspect.
Reasons for arrest of the accused are not supported with any justifiable material - HELD THAT:- There is dispute with regard to furnishing of documents by the ED along with remand application. According to the respondents, ED has filed copies of FIR, grounds of arrest and medical certificates, whereas according to the ED, it has filed all the supporting material in support of the reasons for arrest of the accused. However, the Designated Court did not refer the said aspects in its order dated 14.06.2023. It is for the Designated Court to consider the material filed by the ED in support of the reasons for arrest of the accused.
The Designated Court is not having the benefit of going through the judgment of the Apex Court in Senthil Balaji - impugned order set aside - matter is remanded back to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge/Designated Court under PMLA, Nampally, Hyderabad, with a direction to consider the remand application submitted by the ED and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the ED and the respondents - accused on notice and affording them an opportunity - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (9) TMI 360
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - illegal mining - transportation of 1844 trucks/vehicles carrying stone chips - HELD THAT:- In the instant facts, the nature of the allegation in the present proceedings has been taken note. In that circumstance, it is seen that the petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2022 and he has spent a little over one year of incarceration. The chargesheet is filed and the Trial Court having framed the charges, no doubt has started the trial and it is stated across the bar that five witnesses have been examined but it is also stated that in all 42 witnesses are cited to be examined. In that circumstance, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and also making it subject to the condition that the petitioner shall diligently participate in the trial without interfering in the course of justice and also complying with the other appropriate conditions to be imposed by the trial court, the prayer is accepted.
The petitioner to be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the petitioner diligently adhering to such conditions, as also not being required in any other case. For the purpose of imposition of such conditions and issue of release order the petitioner shall be produced forthwith before the trial court - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (9) TMI 238
Territorial Jurisdiction to hear the case - transfer of case to special court - Prayer to set aside the return Docket Order - bail application - HELD THAT:- Whatever the offence that has been alleged against anyone, which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, that has to be tried only by Special Courts designated under Section 43(1) of the PMLA Act by virtue of the notification of the Central Government issued in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, where the proposed Court is located - by virtue of the notification dated 05.02.2016, the Central Government already exercised such powers in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and Courts have been designated as Special Courts.
When that being the position, since the territorial jurisdiction of the case in hand is in Chennai District only, therefore Chennai being one of the jurisdictional area under the notification issued by the Central Government, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, Chennai, naturally the said case has to be tried in the said Court, since the alleged offence is to be punished only under Section 4 of the PMLA Act.
The very transfer of the case or made over made by the learned Principal Judge, Chennai by transferring the case papers to the Special Court No.I for Trial of Cases exclusively against MLAs and MPs, is not in consonance with Section 43(1) of the PMLA Act vis-avis the notification issued by the Central Government dated 05.02.2016 under notification No.SO.370(E). Therefore, the bail application filed by the petitioner in the said C.C., also has to be heard and disposed only by the Principal Judge, Chennai.
There shall be a direction to the Principal Judge, Chennai to withdraw the made over on C.C.No.9 of 2023 on the file of the said Court and accordingly entertain the bail application in Criminal M.P.SR.No.21974 of 2023 by numbering the same, if it is otherwise in order, and decide the said application after hearing both sides, at the earliest - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (9) TMI 189
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - seeking release of the attached properties - it was held by High Court that In view of the settled legal position in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] and the subsequent decisions and orders thereafter, the properties of Mr. Sachin Joshi and M/s. Muktanand Agro Farming Pvt. Ltd. which were attached by the impugned PAOs shall be released - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 188
Provisional Attachment Order - scheduled offences or not - the proceedings against the Petitioner, its directors, and shareholders in the scheduled offense as also the offense under the PMLA have been closed - it was held by High Court that The PAO deserves to be quashed in view of the legal position as held in the above judgments.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 187
Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - accused is a woman - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail.
Considerations which weigh in the grant of bail are distinct from those which are relevant to the adjudication of an application for cancellation of bail. The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The respondent is released on bail subject to conditions imposed - SLP disposed off.
-
2023 (9) TMI 186
Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - scheduled offences - use of proceeds of crime - statement of witnesses as recorded under section 50(3) of PML Act, not supporting the allegation - Reasons to believe - non-cooperation during investigation - HELD THAT:- Petitioner is accused in 8 criminal cases which appears “schedule offence” in terms of the Act, proceeds of which prima facie appears to create huge property and cash, further.
Petitioner fails to furnish prima facie satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, while recording his statement under section 50(3) of the Act, where it appears to investigating agency that petitioner is not co-operating during investigation, where investigation regarding remaining proceeds of crime above Rs. 4,04,29,415.29/- is still going on.
Therefore, this Court at this stage has no reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail.
The prayer of bail of petitioner is rejected herewith.
-
2023 (9) TMI 185
Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - Freezing of Bank Accounts of petitioner - Constitutional Validity of Section 6(5)(b) and Section 6(7) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - constitution of Bench of the Adjudicating Authority by the Chairperson with two or more Members including one Judicial Member - transfer of the case by a chairperson - HELD THAT:- The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is an Act to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto - a person would be guilty of committing an offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA if he directly or indirectly or knowingly attempts to indulge or assist or is a party or is involved in any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime including its concealment etc., and projecting it as untainted money.
There is a distinct difference in the reason to believe appearing in Section 17 and the reason to believe in respect of Section 5. While the reason to believe is for the purpose of attachment under Section 5(1), the reason to believe is for the purpose of search and seizure under sub- section (1) of Section 17. The reason to believe in Section 5(1) is that a person must be in possession of any proceeds of crime and such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed etc., thereby frustrating any proceeding for confiscation then the Director or the authorised officer may provisionally attach such property - the requirement or the standard of reason to believe in Section 17(1) is on a higher plane than in Section 5(1) inasmuch as the Director or the authorised officer must have reason to believe that the person concerned has committed the offence of money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money laundering etc., instead of being in possession of any proceeds of crime etc.
The “proceeds of crime” has been defined to mean any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence - the definition of “proceeds of crime” is intrinsically related to property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
In Ramesh Chandra Mehta [1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court opined that the customs officer under the Customs Act is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) and that the statements made before him by a person who is arrested or against whom an enquiry is made are not covered by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
There are no hesitation in holding that impugned order dated 25.07.2022 is wholly without jurisdiction. It is trite law that if an order is without jurisdiction, the aggrieved party can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy. This settled proposition needs no elaboration - the impugned order is without jurisdiction there being no scheduled offence against the petitioners, it is not necessary to delve into the question as to what would be the impact of not passing an order under sub- section (2) of Section 20 of PMLA on the PMLA proceedings.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1599
Money Laundering - seizure order - valuable right of the Appellant to cross examine the witness ignored - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- An order of seizure is required to be confirmed within 180 days failing which it stands lapsed. We are not recording our opinion that intention of the Appellant is to delay the proceedings but acceptance of the prayer of cross examination may cause delay thus proper scrutiny of prayer is to be made.
The detailed judgment on it was given by this Tribunal in the case of Dr. U.S. Awasthi [2023 (1) TMI 1420 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI]. The reference of Section of 6(15) of the Act of 2002 and Regulation 21 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 were given therein. It was held in the said case that 'The party who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence from or testimony gathered behind his back cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent demand that there was no opportunity of cross-examination specially when it was not asked for and there was no dispute about the veracity of the statements. Where there is no dispute as to the facts, or the weight to be attached on disputed facts but only an explanation of the acts, absence of opportunity to cross- examination does not create any prejudice in such cases.'
The purpose of the cross examination is to extract the truth from the statement of the witnesses recorded in examination-in-Chief - As per the Indian Evidence Act, right of cross examination is on examination of witness, which does exist in this case. The Appellant wants to cross examine the witness to prove his innocence - The cross examination of witnesses necessarily need examination-in-chief which is missing in this case. Therefore, the prayer of the Appellant to allow cross examination of Kumari Purnima, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement cannot be accepted.
Conclusion - The prayer of the Appellant to allow cross examination of Kumari Purnima, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement denied - appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1539
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - Provisional attachment order - assets disproportionate of known sources of income - HELD THAT:- The first issue is in reference to the application of the Act of 2002. It is in reference to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was not a scheduled offence in the year 2002 but was added by the notification issued in the year 2009 followed by further amendment in the year, 2013. According to the appellant, the check period to find out disproportionate property to the known-sources of income is of the period prior to the amendment and therefore the Act of 2002 could not have been enforced to attach the property. It is for the reason that amendment of year 2009 and 2013 has not been given retrospective effect - The relevant date to find out the scheduled offence is the date when one projects tainted property to be untainted or involves oneself in money laundering and not the date of actual commission of predicate offence. The check period of income may be from the year 2004 to 2014 but the FIR was registered in the year 2014 and thereupon, ECIR was recorded on 12.02.2015. It is much subsequent to the amendment in the Act of 2002 to make an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be a scheduled offence. In view of the above, it is not found that amendment under the Act by the notification of year 2009 or 2013 have been given retrospective effect in this case.
It is to show that no offence under Section 13 (1) (d) or 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 is made out. The appellant is not having disproportionate property to the known-sources. It is found that facts available record prima facie shows a case of disproportionate property in the hands of the appellant to his known-sources.
An order of attachment pre supposes the conditions referred to above and given under Clause (a) and (b) of sub Section (1) of Section 5. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to show any likelihood of concealment or transfer of the properties so as to frustrate the proceeding of confiscation rather the property in question was attached by the Special Court much prior to the order for provisional attachment - The property can be attached by the respondent department under Section 5 of the Act of 2002 but it can be when they possess material to show that property may be concealed, transfer or be dealt with in any manner to frustrate the proceeding of confiscation. When the property was already attached by the Special Court, how it could have been transferred or concealed - reasons to believe were recorded without application of mind.
It is however with clarity that if, the Special Court withdraws the attachment order or the trial pursuant to the FIR is completed, the respondents would be at liberty to exercise their authority under Section 5 (1) of the Act of 2002 in case of an apprehension of concealment or transfer of property.
The appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1533
Seeking permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in the event the predicate offence is revived - Money Laundering - the Settlement Commissioner completed the work that was assigned to him and submitted a report to this court, based on which, the prosecution was quashed by this Court - it was held by the High Court that 'the quash petition deserves to be allowed since the prosecution of the accused in the predicate offence has already been quashed by this court'.
HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1530
Seeking permission to withdraw the petition to avail remedy, if need arises in future - Seeking modification of the bail conditions - the High Court had dismissed the petition - HELD THAT:- The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with above liberty.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1464
Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail - illegal delivery of various items inside the premises of Tihar Jail - bail application has been opposed by the ED predominantly on the ground that the petitioner had been working for main accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar and her co-accused wife Leena Maria Paul - HELD THAT:- It is a settled proposition that at the stage of bail, the court is only required to see the prima facie case and is not allowed to meticulously examine or appreciate the evidence or test the probative value of the witnesses. The court is required to maintain a delicate balance between the judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail before the commencement of the crime.
Even in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] it has been inter alia that the court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. Thus, the court at this stage can grant the bail on the principle of broad probabilities. The court at this stage is required to examine the material in a broad manner and evaluate whether it can reasonably be said that the guilt of the accused can be proved. The court is only required to reach on a prima facie view based on a reasonable and prudent view without meticulous examination of the material collected during the investigation.
In the present case, the accused petitioner was a young girl of around 25-26 years of age. It is an admitted case that she was employed by Leena Maria Paul as Salon Sales Manager in Nail Artistry Salon. The possibility of a young girl with an immature mind falling to the tricks of alleged accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar cannot be ruled out at this stage - Persons of such tender age sometimes in the anxiety of getting easy money may deviate. The facts of each case are peculiar in nature. The present case involves act of a young girl who joined private service and finally ended up to allegedly committing serious offence. The allegation of the petitioner in the present case requires to be tested on evidence and in particular 'mens rea'. There is also no material on record to suggest that the petitioner will commit offence of similar nature, if released on bail.
Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and in particular of the fact that the petitioner is a young girl of 25-26 years is entitled to be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1458
Grant of blanket exemption from personal appearance u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - materials procured by the petitioner from the proceeds of the crime of illegal possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemipenises - whether a case for exemption from personal appearance is made out? - HELD THAT:- The blanket exemption as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, if for sufficient and cogent reasons, the petitioner is unable to appear before the Trial Court, he can always make an application through his advocate for grant of exemption from personal appearance.
SLP disposed off.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1446
Money Laundering - grant of pre-arrest bail - HELD THAT:- The second supplementary complaint after investigation has already been filed. During the course of the investigation, the appellant was not arrested though his statement was recorded.
Hence, a case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellant. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed proper by the competent court.
The warrant issued against the appellant shall not be executed - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (8) TMI 1408
Seeking release of provisional attachment order - Money Laundering or not - no scheduled offences - predicative offences were already quashed - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that predicative offences registered against the accused have been quashed by this Court.
The Division Bench of High Court of Telangana while dealing with similar case in Manturi Shashi Kumar and Another Versus The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [2023 (4) TMI 1199 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], has duly taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijaya Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India - In the said judgment the Division Bench of Telangana High Court has taken the facts and circumstances of the case therein into consideration and held that if a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case registered against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction there can be no money laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked in scheduled offence through him.
However, in the present case, the provisional attachment took place on the ground that, predicative offences have been registered against the members and other officials of the NRIAS. In view of quashing of the said crimes, there are no scheduled offences. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred, since there is no scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
The provisional attachment order set aside - petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
