Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 86 - HC - Money LaunderingProvisional attachment of Fixed Deposit - It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under proviso to Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by giving notice to the petitioner bank before passing the final orders confirming the provisional attachment - HELD THAT:- As seen from the first proviso to section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, it is clear that before passing final orders of attachment under Section 8(1), a notice shall be sent not only to the offender, but also to a person in whose custody the property of the offender is being held - In the case on hand, the fixed deposit is alleged to have been created by the fourth respondent with the petitioner bank. In fact, a copy of the provisional order of attachment dated 15.03.2012 was also communicated by the Director of Enforcement to the petitioner bank as seen from the names found in the last page of the said provisional order of attachment. Even though the provisional order of attachment was communicated to the petitioner, even without hearing the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the final adjudication order of attachment has been passed by the third respondent under the impugned order. It is clear that the third respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under first proviso to section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by not issuing notice to the petitioner who is having custody of the said fixed deposit standing in the name of the fourth respondent before passing final orders of attachment under section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - It is clear that the respondents have also violated the principles of natural justice by not affording any opportunity to the petitioner to place all their objections with regard to the attachment of fixed deposit standing in the name of the fourth respondent. In view of the non-compliance of the first proviso of Section 8(1) of the Act, 2002, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to explain as to how the fixed deposit receipt standing in the name of the fourth respondent cannot be attached - the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration and the third respondent after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise all objections available to them under law with regard to the attachment of the fixed deposit standing in the name of the fourth respondent shall pass final orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, after affording personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed by way of remand.
|