2015 (7) TMI 1269 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - confirmation of attachment of the properties - Held that - The applicant has not produced any relevant documents to show that he had such dealings which would have generated money for him in his companies and businesses. The appellants has failed to discharge the burden which was on him under the Act. The applicant has alleged that he withdrew the money from the bank to purchase the land with another accused, however, it has not been shown even prima-facie as to from where the money had come in the businesses of the appellant. Except making bald allegations that the applicant had been doing businesses, the details of various transactions done by him was given by the appellant. In the circumstances, none of the allegations made by the appellant can be accepted. Order of confirmation of attachment of the properties of the appellant are repelled and cannot be accepted. No illegality, irregularity has been made out in the impugned order which will entail interference by this Appellate Tribunal in exercising its appellate jurisdiction. No other pleas have been raised on behalf of the appellant except those which have been dealt with herein-above by this Tribunal. Therefore the appeal of the appellant must fail. The appellant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the appeal. The provisional attachment order and impugned order confirming the attachment order cannot be set aside in the facts and circumstances.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations against the appellant.
2. Seizure and attachment of properties.
3. Provisional attachment order.
4. Appellant's pleas before the Adjudicating Authority.
5. Confirmation of the provisional attachment order.
6. Jurisdictional arguments.
7. Appellant's defense and evidence.
8. Adjudicating Authority's findings and conclusions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations against the appellant:
The appellant, an engineering graduate and business consultant, was alleged to be involved in a criminal conspiracy with others, including a high-ranking official, to demand and obtain illegal gratification in relation to supply orders and postings within the Ordnance Factory Board. The CBI charged the appellant under Section 120B of IPC and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Seizure and attachment of properties:
The Enforcement Directorate attached properties, including Rs. 27,60,000/- seized from the appellant's bank locker and Rs. 39,81,000/- from his residence. The appellant argued that these amounts were duly accounted for and provided detailed withdrawals from his business accounts to substantiate his claim.

3. Provisional attachment order:
The appellant received a notice from the Adjudicating Authority and filed replies contesting the attachment. He claimed that the allegations were false, baseless, and unsupported by witness testimony or documentary evidence.

4. Appellant's pleas before the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant raised several points, including:
- Allegations by the respondent were false and ignored relevant facts.
- The charge sheet contents were pending before the trial court without witness examination.
- Statements and documents provided by the appellant were ignored.
- The seized amount was explained to CBI but not considered.
- The appellant's business transactions and withdrawals were legitimate and accounted for.
- The monetary threshold under the PML Act was not met.
- The provisional attachment order was invalid as the seized amount was not in the appellant's possession.

5. Confirmation of the provisional attachment order:
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment, citing the CBI's investigations and charge sheets. It was held that the appellant, along with others, conspired to demand and obtain illegal gratification, and the seized amounts were proceeds of crime.

6. Jurisdictional arguments:
The appellant argued that the respondent lacked jurisdiction as the amount involved was below the threshold and the seized amount was not in his control. The Authority rejected this, stating that the attachment was necessary to prevent concealment or transfer of proceeds of crime.

7. Appellant's defense and evidence:
The appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claims. He did not provide balance sheets or other documents to substantiate the legitimacy of the seized amounts. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof.

8. Adjudicating Authority's findings and conclusions:
The Authority held that the appellant was involved in money laundering and the attached properties were proceeds of crime. It confirmed the attachment, stating that the measures were consistent with the objectives of the PMLA and necessary to prevent frustration of confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the provisional attachment order and the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation. It found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order, and the appellant's pleas were rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.