Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 189 - HC - Money LaunderingSmuggling - illegal possession of Heroin - illegal possession of an amount of ₹ 9 lacs recovered from underneath the rear seat of the vehicle - procceds of crime - pendency of attachment proceedings - Whether prosecution for offence under Section 3 of PMLA can be initiated during the pendency of attachment proceedings or before the attachment confirmation attains finality or before the conviction of the petitioner under the NDPS Act attains finality? Held that:- As is evident from the scheme of the PMLA, the proceedings for attachment are separate and in the nature of interim measures required to be taken to avoid a situation where proceedings are rendered redundant on account of the property being squandered away. If the designated officer has reason to believe, based on the material in his possession, that a person is in possession of proceeds of crime and, such proceeds, are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating proceedings relating to confiscation of 'proceeds of crime', he may proceed to attach the property in question. In fact it is in anticipation of prosecution that attachment proceedings are initiated. The second proviso to Section 5(1), when read alongwith first proviso, would itself make it clear that attachmant or pendency of attachment proceedings would not affect filing of a complaint under PMLA. While the first proviso to Section 5(1) envisages the provisional attachment being made simultaneously with the filing of the challan in the criminal Court for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, the second proviso carves out an exception by providing that in case the Director or any other authorised officer has reason to believe that if such property involved in moneylaundering is not attached immediately the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act, the attachment may be made prior to initiation of criminal proceedings. While proceedings under Sections 5 and 8 of PMLA are conducted by Enforcement Authorities, a complaint for offence under section 3 of PMLA is dealt with by a Special Court presided over by a judicial officer. Needless to mention that the Special Court is neither bound not governed not influenced by any order passed by the Enforcement Authorities and has to act independently on the basis of evidence led before it. It is thus evident from the provisions of PMLA itself that there is no statutory bar for initiating prosecution under PMLA in case it is prima facie found that an offence under Section 3 of PMLA has been committed. Attachment proceedings are initiated simply with the purpose of ensuring that the recovered amount is kept intact - The maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus", has no application to the present case for the reason that it is not the order of attachment which is foundation for lodging a complaint under section 3 of P MLA but it is the factum of recovery of the amount of ₹ 9 lakhs, primafacie believed to be 'proceeds of crime' which forms the foundation for prosecuting the accused for offence under section 3 of PMLA. There is no ground either for quashing the complaint filed against petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or the summoning order or even for staying the proceedings of complaint during pendency of the appeal against attachment before the Appellate Authority - petition dismissed.
|