Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 882 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney laundering - infusion of cash from M/s. Jagat Projects Ltd. into bank accounts of entities controlled by Jain Brothers as reflected in the bank accounts of these entities - ITO recorded a finding that M/s. Jagat Projects Ltd had laundered its unaccounted income through a set of companies controlled by Jain Brothers in the guise of share subscription money at a huge premium to the tune of ₹ 64.70 Crores - respondent filed the application under section 17 (4) of PMLA,2002 for retention of the property during the pendency of the proceeding relating to any offence under this Act Held that:- The PML Act is the Special Act. The provisions of said Act are very stringent which have to be applied strictly. No different meaning or interception can be given in the absence of ambiguity of any provisions. It is settled law that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that way and none other. To retain such property for the purpose of proceeding under section 8 of the Act, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant has argued that the impugned order is totally contrary to the law passed by the adjudicating authority as due process has not been followed by the ED, which is mandated under section 20 of the Act. After the retention of the property, the respondent has not passed an order for retention or confirmation of freezing of the property for purposes of adjudication under section 8 of the Act. Rule 3 of ‘The Prevention of Money-laundering (The manner of forwarding a copy of the order of retention of seized property along with the material to the Adjudicating Authority and the period of its retention) Rules, 2005 mandates for the same It appears from the impugned order, there is no discussion at all with regard to retention the property, except it is stated that after considering the original application, submission of the defendant, it is held that the condition laid down for retention are satisfied and original application is allowed. The case on merit of the parties has not been discussed or considered by the adjudicating authority. This said fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent before us. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is an order in the eyes of law which is not sustainable
|