|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1544 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1419
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - bungling and misappropriation of funds and cheating etc - supply of medicines at exorbitant price, causing huge loss to the Government - HELD THAT:- Looking at the nature of offence and also taking note of the fact that the economic offences constitute/form a different class and while considering the bail application of an accused in such an offence, it is required to be visited differently than the offences under the IPC, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail. This anticipatory bail application is, therefore, rejected.
However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail within seven days from today, the same shall be considered, preferably on the same day, keeping in mind that the accused-applicant was not arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement, invoking the powers under Section 19 of the PMLA during the investigation and he had cooperated with the investigation - Application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1392
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - applicant-petitioner had never co-operated with the investigation and was, in fact, declared absconder - HELD THAT:- We are not entering into any of the questions for the reason that we have taken up the matter for consideration for a limited purpose of correcting the obvious errors in the order dated 07.12.2022 and for putting the records straight while, at the same time, maintaining the spirit of the order as passed by us.
We again make it clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case and, obviously, it would be expected of the Trial Court to consider the matter dispassionately and uninfluenced by any of the observations occurring in the order impugned or in the present order by us.
Application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1391
Prayer for adjournment declined - petitioner seeking adjournment due to personal difficulty of the instructing counsel - HELD THAT:- After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.12.2018, whereby the High Court declined the prayer of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner - On being queried if any of the principal accused person had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in these matters, inter alia, involving the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly answered in the negative.
In any case, so far the impugned orders are concerned, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly declined the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, particularly looking to the nature of accusations. The grant of bail or even pre-arrest bail to any other accused will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the prayer for pre-arrest bail is concerned. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed.
However, taking note of the overall circumstances, including that the petitioner is a lady in about 58 years of age, we deem it appropriate to provide that if the petitioner surrenders within a week from today and applies for regular bail, her bail plea may be considered by the Trial Court expeditiously and in priority. The interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue for a period a period of one week or until the bail plea of the petitioner is considered by the Trial Court, whichever be the earlier.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1382
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - Embezzlement of money - allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed offence of money laundering which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The mandate of law is that apart from Section 45 of PMLA Act, 2002, the requirement under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should also be taken note of. In the case on hand, there are grave allegations that are directed against the petitioner. Also, by the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, it is clear that the presence of the petitioner could not be secured easily. Learned Standing Counsel states that only after issuance of Look Out Circular, the petitioner could be traced out and arrested. The apprehension of the investigating agency i.e., the Enforcement Directorate is that in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may interrupt the investigating process by threatening the witnesses.
Having considered the submissions thus made, this Court is of the view that even if Section 45 of PMLA Act, 2002 is not applied, independently also, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress and where the allegations are grave in nature and that too, when fraud is committed by embezzlement of an amount to a tune of Rs.318 crores and Indian depositors were deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be honoured at this stage.
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1381
Attachment of Immovable properties - proceeds of crime - contention is that the Enforcement Directorate has no right to attach the properties of the petitioners and continue with the attachment proceedings in the teeth of the interim order granted by this Court - HELD THAT:- In the event the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it would defeat the very power of attachment under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the PMLA and if the Enforcement Directorate is permitted to move on with the attachment by seeking a confirmation order or proceeding to sell the attached properties, it would defeat the very proceedings pending before this Court in the predicate offences and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDARY [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, to keep the right of the petitioners and the respondent/Enforcement Directorate alive, I deem it appropriate to stall further proceedings in the impugned attachment order i.e., the provisional attachment order directing it not to be confirmed or it being taken any further, however, it would not mean that there can be release of the subjects of attachment in favour of the petitioners. If status quo has to be maintained in the proceedings under the IPC for the reason that there is an interim order; status quo has to be maintained in the proceedings of ECIR as well i.e., the impugned proceedings, all of which would mean that they are mutual to each other.
The writ petition is allowed in part.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1380
Provisional attachment order - predicate offences - right of Enforcement Directorate to attach the properties of the petitioners - reasons to believe - continuation of proceedings under PMLAin the teeth of the interim order of stay of further proceedings granted in the offences relating to IPC.
Whether the Enforcement Directorate had the right to attach the properties of the petitioners? - HELD THAT:- The 3rd respondent/Competent Authority passes an order on 01.08.2022, issuing a provisional attachment order in Provisional Order No.5 of 2022 under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the PMLA. To arrive at passing of the order, statements of all the petitioners have been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and several documents are scrutinized. A detailed order is passed in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA and arriving at a conclusion albeit prima facie that he has reason to believe that proceeds of crime are the result of properties standing in the names of the petitioners either movable or immovable.
It is this attachment order that drives the petitioners to this Court. Therefore, the power under Section 5 being executed and the considered finding that he has reason to believe to pass the said order cannot be found fault with. It is in tune with Section 5 of the PMLA. Therefore, the first point that has arisen for consideration is answered against the petitioners, holding that the3 rd respondent has the power to attach the properties. What is required is ‘there should be reasons to believe’. The order passed does reflect application of mind and records reasons to believe that they were proceeds of crime.
Whether the impugned proceedings under PMLA in ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/04/2019/AD-AKV/1541 should be permitted to be continued in the teeth of the interim order of stay of further proceedings granted in the offences relating to IPC i.e., the predicate offences? - HELD THAT:- If the allegations in the predicate offences are considered to be the flesh, the offences under the PMLA is the blood, they are impregnable. Therefore, if the predicate offences are not permitted to move forward, the impugned proceedings cannot. It would have been altogether different circumstance, if the petitioners were all acquitted of the offences under the IPC or any other predicate offence to which the offence under the PMLA is linked. The situation in the case at hand is not with regard to acquittal, but the stay of the proceedings. Therefore, they are eclipsed and not extinguished.
In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDARY [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] it is deemed appropriate to stall all further action in the impugned proceedings till conclusion of Writ Petition No.14431 of 2020 and Criminal Petition No.7949 of 2020. If the proceedings in the predicate offence are stayed, the impugned proceedings of attachment under the ECIR cannot be permitted to continue. If the proceedings move on in the predicate offence, the offence under the ECIR should also be permitted to continue, failing which, it would defeat the proceedings under the PMLA or the IPC and would fall foul of the judgment of the Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1374
Money Laundering/criminal conspiracy - proceeds of crime - it is alleged that the accused-applicant is a part of larger conspiracy hatched by K.A. Rauf Sherif, Secretary of PFI to visit Hathras with an intention to disturb communal harmony, instigating riots and spreading terror and to fund anti-CAA protest and for other unlawful activities of PFI - conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA fulfilled - HELD THAT:- Except for allegations that Rs. 5,000/- was transferred in the bank account of co-accused, Atikur Rahman, there is no other transaction, either in the bank account of the accused-applicant or in the bank account of co-accused. Even if it is believed that part of proceeds of crime was transferred in the bank account of co-accused, Atikur Rahman that itself may not be sufficient to prove that the accused-applicant has dealt with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,36,14,291/-which had been allegedly received by K.A. Rauf Sherif.
Considering the facts, coupled with the contention on behalf of the accused-applicant that in the present case the twin conditions, as mentioned under Section 45 of the PMLA, are not attracted inasmuch as the proceeds of crime is less than Rs.1 Crore and there is no likelihood of the accused-applicant to commit the same offence in future, and the fact the accused-applicant has already been in prison in predicate offences from 05.10.2020 till he was enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, and thereafter he is in custody of the ED, the accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Sidhique Kappan, accused of mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magitrate concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice - Application allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1243
Criminal conspiracy - scheduled offences - predicate offences - Large scale bungling - misappropriation and cheating of public funds, while implementing the NRHM by the government officials, in active connivance and conspiracy with private persons - HELD THAT:- Offence of money laundering is clearly a distinct and distinguishable from predicate offence. The FIR could be triggering point for initiation of proceedings under the PMLA. If it is found that the accused have also committed an offence which is punishable under the PMLA, the prosecution under the PMLA will be initiated by filing complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA. The scheduled offence and offence of money laundering are mutually exclusive and independent of each other.
The offence under Section 3 of the PMLA does not prescribe any limit of proceeds of crime for initiating the proceedings under the PMLA. Section 4 of the PMLA also does not provide that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA would be punishable when the proceeds of crime is Rs. 1 Crore or more. The offence of money laundering is made punishable for activities related to money laundering but not the quantum of money. The attachment proceedings are associated with civil proceedings mentioned in the PMLA. Even for the civil action i.e. attachment of proceeds of crime and property under the PMLA, it is not a condition precedent that against such a person, there should existing proceedings under scheduled offences. The definition of proceeds of crime and property under the PMLA would allow for confiscation of property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime relating to a scheduled (predicate) offence, including income, profit and other benefits from the proceeds of crime.
Offence of money laundering is a contining offence and relevance of the date of commission of the scheduled offence is irrelevant for the reason that as long as one is in possession of the proceeds of crime, he would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA - application dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1242
Money laundering - misappropriated the loan amount - company has misappropriated the money lent by the bank and there was clear cut diversion of funds by the company - HELD THAT:- Money laundering often involves a complex series of transactions and it generally includes placement i.e. introduction of the proceeds of crime into the financial system. The proceeds of crime is layered in several financial transactions to distance the illicit proceeds from their source and to disguise the audit trail. In this process, a series of conversions or transactions are involved for moving the funds and places such as offshore financial centers operating in a liberal regulatory regime.
The proceeds of crime is invested in the legitimate economy, so that the money may get the colour of legitimacy and this is achieved by techniques such as lending the money through front companies, etc.
Prima facie the offence of money laundering is made out against the petitioner, he being the Chief Executive Officer of the company when the corporate loans were obtained and which were diverted for the purposes other than for which the loans were sanctioned to the company. No ground to quash the impugned proceedings.
Thus, the present petition has no merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed.
As provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the PMLA Court and applies for regular bail, his bail application should be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1198
Money laundering - loans were fraudulently obtained by KSBL from banks/Financial Institutions by declaring clients’ shares as its own shares - Direction to grant extension of time to the petitioners to prepare a reply to the show cause notice, for a further period of two months and consequently exclude two month period from the computation of 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- No doubt that the adjudicating process as envisaged under Section 8 of the Act is time-bound process. Timelines are mentioned therein. Therefore, in view of the said discussion, according to this Court, the petitioners are entitled to grant of extension of some reasonable time to submit reply to the show cause notice, dated 19.09.2022. According to this Court, two months time from today is reasonable.
According to Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have to get information and submit explanation effectively. Unless and until the said defendants submit explanation, 1st respondent/ Adjudicating Authority will not be in a position to pass an order in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to 2nd respondent. For the purpose of computing the time period of 180 days, the period during which the proceedings were extended shall be excluded in terms of proviso 3 to Section 5 of the Act - It is relevant to note that this Court vide Common order dated 10.08.2022 in W.P.No.30753 of 2022 granted two months time to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 22.04.2022 issued in respect of PAO therein. There is no challenge the said order and it attained finality. There is no allegation that petitioners did not comply with the said order.
This court is also inclined to extend time to the petitioners - this Writ Petition is disposed of granting two months time from today to the petitioners to submit their explanation/reply to the show cause notice dated 19.09.2022.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1197
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - scheduled offences - ponzi companies - petitioner is alleged to be instrumental in facilitating co-accused Pranjil Batra for purchasing/acquiring 10 dummy/paper/fictitious companies in cash consideration to the tune of Rs.42 crores through 'accommodation' entries - HELD THAT:- The role of the petitioner when examined make it clearly apparent that he has indulged into money laundering by way of facilitating co-accused in execution of the fraud through dubious modus-operandi.
Money laundering criminals use shell companies because shell companies are commercial companies that appear legitimate but are actually controlled by criminals. These shell companies mix illegal funds with legitimate funds to hide unfair income. Front companies are not only aiming to make a profit but also to protect illegal funds. By using shell companies and other investments in legitimate companies, money laundering proceeds are used to control industry or other sectors leading to monetary instability due to improper distortions in asset prices. It also provides a way to avoid taxation and, thus, deprive the country of income - the PMLA was promulgated to check money laundering and stringent provisions have been incorporated therein as money laundering cripples the economy of a nation. Section 24 of the PMLA provides that when a person is accused of having committed the offence under Section 3, the burden of proving that 'proceeds of crime' is untainted property shall be on the accused. Section 44 of the PMLA is another section in the string of strict provisions which provides for continuity of commission of offence as long as all the 'proceeds of crime' are not recovered and empowers the investigating agency to file supplementary complaints upon surfacing of any fresh evidence and such complaint is to be tried along with the initial complaint.
The fetter imposed by Section 45 of the PMLA in the matter of grant of bail, having been restored, as is evident from the judgments referred to above and also that the said fetters are equally applicable while considering grant of anticipatory bail, it goes without saying that the twin conditions as regards the Courts satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and also that the accused, if granted bail is not likely to commit similar offence again is sine-qua-non in the matter of grant of bail.
At this stage, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is innocent or that in case granted bail, he will not flee from justice or that he will not commit similar offences again. As such, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed in earlier portion of this order, particularly the enormity of the scam wherein a substantial part of proceeds of crime is yet to be located and recovered, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be indispensable. Thus, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner is made out.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1196
Seeking return of amount given to plaintiff - Defendant contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement submitting inter alia that he was never in need of money and has never taken any amount from plaintiff and had not executed any promissory note in his favour - claim barred by virtue of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act and is also barred by the provisions of the Money Lending Act or not - HELD THAT:- It is a solitary instance of advancement of loan by plaintiff to the defendant for which no license under the Money Lending Act was required by plaintiff. There is no evidence adduced by defendant to show that plaintiff is in the business of money lending and had advanced similar loans to different persons hence his contention that plaintiff was required to be registered under the Money Lending Act is without any merit. Likewise it was not mandatory for plaintiff to have advanced the sum to the defendant by way of cheque alone and it cannot be said that he could not have done the same by way of cash. The provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to the present facts. In any case, the defendant upon receiving loan amount from plaintiff cannot take shelter of such a hyper technicality.
A perusal of proceedings of the trial Court shows that the defendant ever since the very inception had been totally negligent in prosecution of his case and had been taking repeated adjournments firstly for filing of the written statement and thereafter for cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses. His right to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses was eventually closed by the trial Court on 21.06.2018 observing that last opportunity on imposition of costs had already been granted to him earlier hence no further opportunity can be granted to him. It cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any illegality in closing the right of defendant to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses.
There are no illegality committed by the Courts below in decreeing the claim of plaintiff. The findings arrived at by them are based upon due appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record and no error or perversity in the same is found. The findings being findings of facts are not liable to be interfered with at the second appellate stage - appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1150
Validity of summons issued - money laundering - proceeds of crime - process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in nature of inquiry against the proceeds of crime or investigation in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution - authorities under the PMLA are police officers or not - HELD THAT:- The record reflects that the sole prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition was to quash the summons dated 26th of July, 2022 and 12th of August, 2022. These summons were issued for the limited purpose seeking appearance of the petitioner before E.D. on the given date. The summon for appearing on 26th of July, 2022 contains the summon No. “PMLA/SUMMON/HIU2/2022/616” and the summon dated 12th of August, 2022 contains a different summon No. “PMLA/SUMMON/HIU2/2022/663”. These summons were issued in connection with F.No. ECIR/17/HUI/2020. The summons were in terms of Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA related to powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence etc. Sub-Section 2 of Section 50 empowers the specified officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under the Act.
There is no further direction to the writ petitioner by the appellant to appear. Hence, the impugned summons have been worked out and have lost their force now. As on date, there is nothing on record indicating that the writ petitioner is further required to appear before the appellant in terms of Section 50 of PMLA. Thus, nothing survives in the pending writ petition. In fact, by way of interim relief, learned Single Judge had granted the final relief to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition has now become infructuous for all practical purposes.
Nothing survives in the present writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge which has become infructuous on account of subsequent development - Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 978
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Seeking cancellation of bail of the opposite party namely, Debabrata Halder - HELD THAT:- The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad, the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
In VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to emphasise on the issue relating to a delicate balance between the merits of appreciation while deciding a case at the stage of acquittal or conviction and an application for bail. For this purpose the phrase “reasonable grounds for believing” was also emphasized in relation to the material collected by the prosecution at the time of considering the bail application.
Considering that the order passed by the Learned Judge, Special (CBI), Court no.1, Calcutta in ML Case No. 11 of 2022 is in violation of the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, I am of the opinion that the said order calls for interference. Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2022 granting bail to the accused Debabrata Halder is hereby set aside.
Application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 977
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - forbearing respondent from proceeding further on the ground that the respondent is acting beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - contravention of the provisions of FEMA - HELD THAT:- Various contentions were raised on either side on the merits of the case and by pointing out to various provisions under FEMA and relevant regulations. We do not want to deal with any issue touching upon the merits of the case by taking the role of the investigation agency. We have to satisfy ourselves as to whether the respondent is acting within the four corners of PML Act and not misusing the powers of investigation.
If we are convinced that the investigation taken up by the respondent is within their powers and there is no misuse of powers, we cannot act as a stumbling block in the further progress of the investigation conducted by the respondent. It is left open to the petitioner Company to submit their explanation to the respondent along with all supporting documents and we expect the respondent to proceed further with the investigation within the scope of PML Act. The Apex Court time and again has frowned upon interference into investigations conducted by the Investigation Agency since Courts are not expected to stall investigations, which falls within the exclusive domain of the executive, unless such an investigation is found to be without jurisdiction or there is misuse of power of investigation or such an investigation is an abuse of process of law.
There are no ground to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent - petition dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 976
Coram non-judice - Seeking stay of the proceeding till such time the coram of Adjudicating Authority, as stipulated under Rule 6 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is constituted - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the reasons given for cross examination and the questions would show that according to the appellant, most of the witnesses named above have not made any incriminating statement against it, yet the appellant prayed for cross examination of those witnesses. Few of them are even involved in alleged money laundering. The allegations are made mainly in reference to the documentary evidence collected by the Department yet ignored by the appellant.
It is further a fact that the cross examination has been sought to prove that applicant had no communication for alleged transactions with M/s. DHFL involved in schedule offence rather appellant is not remotely connected with the offence of money laundering. Those common questions have been referred for majority of the witnesses ignoring the documentary evidence to prove it.
The cross examination from the witnesses would be in reference to the documentary evidence for which an opportunity has been given to the appellant to contest the notice by filing reply and documents. The application to seek cross examination was filed even before filing reply to the notice along with the documents. It is otherwise a fact that Mr. Avinash Bhosale is connected with the appellant and an accused in the matter to be cross examined to espouse his own cause, cannot be permitted - the cross examination of witnesses sought by the appellant is for the sake of it and to delay the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
The principle of natural justice would apply when some real prejudice is going to be caused out of the action of one party. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to reflect as to what prejudice is going to cause to him if the cross examination of witness is not permitted. It is apart from the fact that the material on record shows that the allegations against the appellant are in reference to the documentary evidence which has not been refuted by the appellant by filing reply.
Sufficient safeguard has been provided and looking to the nature of proceedings, cross examination cannot be permitted as a rule rather it can be as an exception. A case of exceptional nature is not made out herein. Thus, we do not find any reason to cause interference with the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - Looking to the scope of attachment proceedings, cross examination can be permitted only as an exception and not as a rule, otherwise it may delay the proceedings, resulting in lapse of proceedings and causing serious consequences even against the accused, if they are forced to disclose their defence at a premature stage.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 913
Seeking directions to the Respondent – Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, to supply the legible copies of all the Relied-Upon Documents - seeking extension of time period for filing the reply to the Show Cause Notice - HELD THAT:- The court has also seen a copy of the bundle of documents. Several of the documents are illegible or unreadable. Be that as it may, since the issue in the present petition only relates to legible copies of the RUDs being supplied, this Court is of the opinion that the said issue need not be delved into further, as the same is moot, in light of the judgment of this Court in J.K. TYRE AND INDUSTRIES LTD., KP SANGHVI AND SONS LLP & ANR., SHRI VISHWANATH OVERSEAS, PARAS IMPO EXPO PVT. LTD., ALOK INDUSTRIES LIMITED, S.N. KAPOOR EXPORTS, M/S. HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT. LTD., SNB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ORBIT EXPORTS LTD., SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD., MAXIS INDUSTRIES, M/S. BLOSSOM FABRICS LIMITED, PROMPT INTERNATIONAL, M/S. MAYA TRADES, EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, M/S. SUPRINT TEXTILES JAIPUR PVT. LTD., M/S. SUKU INNOVATIVES VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR., UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2021 (10) TMI 1176 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
An inspection of all the original documents constituting the RUDs be given to the Petitioner or two representatives of the Petitioner, including a counsel, on 22nd December, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. - For the purposes of the said inspection, the Petitioner or the representatives of the Petitioner shall visit the office of the ED on the said date, and have a meeting with Mr. Amit Monga, the Investigating Officer.
Upon the copies of the RUDs being supplied to the Petitioner or his representatives, after inspection, the reply to the Original Complaint shall be filed by the Petitioner, by 15th January, 2023. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the reply filed by the Petitioner and adjudicate the matter, in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 774
Money Laundering - aggrieved person - notice for interim attachment of properties not served - requirement to send the notice to person who is not the owner but in possession of property - possession notice has been issued to the petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the premises - non-service of final attachment Order as well - Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that the very property has been divested by the creating false documents, which has not been disputed. The property has been attached in the proceedings initiated against the second and third respondents. According to the petitioner, they are in possession of the property under some oral arrangement from the very inception and there was also an oral agreement for sale between the original owner and themselves. The factum of their possession is not disputed - this Court is of the view that as the possession of the petitioner has not been disputed by the Department, any Order evicting or taking away their possession, will certainly affect the right of a person and such person would be an aggrieved person and they will certainly fall under the ambit of Section 26 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. They can very well challenge the action of the respondent by filing an appeal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners are certainly aggrieved persons, they are entitled to file an appeal and establish their stand before the appellate authority. It is for the petitioner to establish their right over the property before the appellate authority. Till such appeal is decided, the petitioners cannot be evicted and the notice served on them shall be put on hold till the disposal of the appeal. In such view of the matter, the respondent is directed to serve a copy of the Order of attachment passed under section 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 enabling the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 26 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
These Writ Petitions are disposed of.
-
2022 (12) TMI 724
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - reimbursement of forged medical claim - HELD THAT:- In the present case, during PMLA investigation, it is found that Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has transferred an amount of Rs.36 lakhs in the account of Lokesh Paliwal on the direction of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat and this amount came out of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.2,65,96,086/- which Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has received as reimbursement of the forged medical claims. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by Shri Lokesh Paliwal in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept by Shri Lokesh Paliwal himself.
Investigation has been completed. Complaint has also been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Allegation made against the petitioner- Lokesh Paliwal in the instant case is of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by him in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept for himself. Property identified of petitioner Lokesh Paliwal is 50% area of Plot No.123, Verma Colony, Sector-9, Hiran Magri, Udaipur and the total value of the said property is Rs.28,23,600/- (attached upto Rs.14 lakhs).
This anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is, hereby, ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, namely Lokesh Paliwal son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Paliwal, in the aforesaid F.I.R. by the concerned Investigating Officer, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned Investigating Officer on the conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 606
Provisional attachment - Expiry of 80 days mandatory period for confirmation of the provisional attachment u/s 5 of PMLA - Applicability of decision of Supreme Court for exclusion of certain period on account of COVID-19 pandemic - the competent authority had failed to pass any formal order of confirmation or extension of validity of the provisional attachment order u/s 8(3) - HELD THAT:- undisputedly the order of provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was passed on 30th of September, 2021. 180 days period from the date of order was over on 31st of March, 2022. Before the expiry of 180 days, no order was made under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. Hence, on these undisputed facts, the provisional order of attachment had expired on 31st of March, 2022.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has clearly noted in suo motu petition that the order was passed for extending the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings and the order was for the benefit of those who wanted to take remedy, whose remedy were barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the order passed in Suo Motu petition dated 23rd of March, 2020 never meant to curtail any provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other statute which was enacted to protect personal liberty of a person.
Considering the provisions contained under Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the PMLA in the light of the above pronouncement, it is found that Section 5(1) does not relate to filing of any pleading but relates to the period of validity of the order of attachment. By virtue of Section 5(3) of the PMLA, the order of attachment under Section 5(1) ceases to have effect on expiry of the prescribed period. Thus, for such a provision, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period for filing the pleading will not apply.
The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that the benefit of extended period of limitation by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 will not be available for extending the validity period of provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the provisional attachment order.
............
|
