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 202 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - allegation that proceeds of crime utilised subsequently by the accused persons for acquisition of various movable/immovable assets so as to project them as "untainted" on continued basis even after 1st June, 2009, which is an offence under Section 3 of PML Act - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that initially, ECIR was registered with the allegation that the total value involved in the instant offence is more than ₹ 30 lac and due to contravention of provisions under Section 37 of the Act, the proceeding was initiated in terms of the provisions under Section 2y(ii) of the PML Act for the purpose of investigation. It is also undisputed that during the course of investigation, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement wrote a letter to Chief Environment Officer on 13th December, 2013 and requested to provide the valuation of the unit, which was not installed in the factory, in reply to which, information was given by the said Officer that cost of the device/chimney, which was not installed at the time of inspection, is ₹ 2 lac. Thereafter, Complaint Case No. 04 of 2015 was filed by Enforcement Directorate in the court of Special Judge (PML Act) with the allegation that the inspection of factory was conducted by the officers of the Board on 16th July, 2007 and it was found that no pollution control equipment was installed in the factory as per the provisions laid down in the Act. From the record, it is also evident that after purchasing the land in question in the year 2004 for running the factory, the revisionist had applied for consent of the Board in the year 2007 and the inspection of the premises was conducted by the officers of the Board, in which, the pollution control unit was not found. As by way of Act No. 23 of 2019, Explanation clause has been added in Section 2(u) of the PML Act, which clearly provides that the 'Proceed of Crime' include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Indisputably, in the present case, the cost of the unit, viz. ₹ 2 lac, which was not installed at the factory, is treated as 'Proceed of Crime'. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to dispute the fact that initially the allegation levelled was that total value involved in the offence was more than ₹ 30 lac, which is categorically mentioned in the ECIR, but later on, in the complaint case, only the cost of equipment which was not installed, is treated as a 'Proceed of Crime' - Admittedly, the court below failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Revision allowed.
|