2015 (7) TMI 1256 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - attachment orders - joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants - Held that - During the course of arguments in the present appeal, learned counsel for appellants submitted that though the respondent has alleged that the subject properties have been acquired by the accused out of proceeds of crime in the names of appellants but this allegation of the respondent is being contested on the ground that subject properties are independently acquired properties of the appellants from their legitimate sources. This goes on to show that each of the appellants will have separate arguments regarding source of acquisition of the subject properties. Here all the 20 appellants are independent persons. They cannot file a joint appeal. In a combined appeal, a declaration, plea/contention by one appellant will not be binding on other appellant(s). Each of the appellant is aggrieved only of his/her property attached and not for property attached of other appellant(s). In other words as each appellant is independently aggrieved, therefore the aggrieved appellants has to file separate appeals with appropriate copies. A perusal of appeal reveals that though appeal has been filed jointly by 20 appellants but only one appeal fee has been filed and it is not the plea of the appellants that though joint appeal has been filed by twenty appellants but twenty appeal fees has been paid for twenty appellants and for the purpose of pursuing appeal on behalf of twenty appellants, joint appeal may be allowed to be pursued. It is also not the plea of the appellants that all the subject properties whose attachment is contested are jointly owned by all the twenty appellants and they should be treated jointly as one appellant. Thus joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants would not be maintainable. Consequently, the plea of the appellants is liable to be rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position.
2. Allegations of money laundering.
3. Legitimacy of joint appeals by multiple appellants.
4. Limitation period for filing appeals.
5. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position:
It was alleged that Shri S. Muralidharan, Branch Manager at Syndicate Bank, conspired with Shri S. Kumar @ Vijayakumar and others to sanction housing loans without adhering to basic banking norms. These loans were sanctioned based on forged documents and were misutilized, resulting in a significant financial loss for the bank. The CBI registered a criminal case and filed eight chargesheets invoking Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on the CBI's FIR and chargesheets, alleging that the loans were part of a money laundering scheme. The investigation revealed that loans were taken in the names of various persons but were actually availed and enjoyed by Shri S. Kumar @ Vijayakumar. The properties purchased with these loans were attached under provisional attachment order No. 13/2014, and the attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Legitimacy of Joint Appeals by Multiple Appellants:
The appeal was filed jointly by twenty appellants against the order confirming the attachment of properties. The appellants argued that since the provisional attachment and the adjudicating authority's order were common, a joint appeal should be maintainable. However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Bhagirathi Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. & Others, which held that joint appeals by multiple appellants are not maintainable. Each aggrieved person must file a separate appeal, as the issues and arguments for each appellant could differ significantly.

4. Limitation Period for Filing Appeals:
The appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of forty-five days without an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period for each appellant would be computed separately based on the date of service of the impugned order. The appellants failed to disclose the dates of service or provide sufficient cause for the delay, leading to procedural deficiencies in their appeal.

5. Compliance with Procedural Rules for Filing Appeals:
The Tribunal highlighted the procedural requirements under Section 26 of the PMLA and the Prevention of Money-laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005. Each appellant must file an appeal in the prescribed form, accompanied by the appropriate fee and documents. The joint appeal filed by the twenty appellants did not comply with these requirements, as only one fee was paid, and the appeal did not include separate declarations or arguments for each appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the joint appeal filed by the twenty appellants as not maintainable due to non-compliance with procedural rules and the absence of a valid application for condonation of delay. Each appellant was required to file a separate appeal with the appropriate fee and documentation. The pending application in the appeal was also dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →