Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1303 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - attachment orders - reason to believe - Held that:- The predicate FIR and Charge Sheet, from which the subject PAO arises, were filed in May 2011 and August 2012, respectively. The ECIR was registered in May 2012. The investigation carried by the Respondent was also way back in the year 2015. The respondent has passed the PAO in the year 2017. There is no justification whatsoever on behalf of ED for such a long delay once even the alleged POC at the part the total proceed of crime can be attributable to the Appellant is ₹ 3.97 Lakhs. The Appellant is a steel trader with good financial standing in the market and society. The Appellant is ready to secure an amount of ₹ 3.97 Lakhs, but the respondent is not agreeable. The entire computation is illegal manner because as per the Respondent's own case, the alleged value of the material purportedly obtained by fraudulent means is ₹ 18,97,090/- which has been rounded to ₹ 19 lakhs by the Respondent. However, while effecting the attachment, the attachment was made for an amount of ₹ 21,20,000/- as per the value ascribed by the Complainant himself. The Respondent at the best could have directed the Appellant to secure ₹ 3.97 lakhs for the purpose of trial. The Respondent's pursuit to only attach immovable property, admittedly unconnected to the alleged offence, demonstrates the mala fide intention behind the attachment, which is to harass the Appellant. The Complainant in its own showing has denoted the market value of the property as more than 60 lakhs. The appeal is allowed, the impugned order against the appellant is set-aside so as the PAO. However, without prejudice, the appellant is directed to secure the alleged amount being attributed as POC in the hands of Appellant to the tune of ₹ 3.97 lakhs to be deposited in the form of FDR in favour of the respondent for the period of five years so that trial is over by that time, otherwise the appellant shall renew the FDR for further period of five years. Once the said amount is deposited, the attachment shall be lifted forthwith.
|