2018 (11) TMI 1653 - HC - Money Laundering

Prevention of Money Laundering - Seizure/attachment of any movable/immovable property - HELD THAT - Prima facie, it is difficult to understand the action now being proposed by respondent no.2 after more than four years of filing of said FIR. This Court was otherwise inclined to entertain this petition. However, it is pointed out that an appeal (FPA PMLA 1781/CHD/2017) has already been preferred before the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority passed on 05.04.2017. Undisputedly, the issues raised in the said appeal are similar to those raised present petition. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain this petition. The Appellate Tribunal is requested to consider the petitioner s appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition to direct Directorate of Enforcement not to conduct seizure/attachment actions under PMLA.
2. Quashing of Seizure Memo and related orders under PMLA.
3. Delay in proposed action by Directorate of Enforcement.
4. Appeal pending before Appellate Tribunal similar to issues raised in the petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to prevent the Directorate of Enforcement from seizing or attaching any property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) based on an ECIR dated 29.12.2014. The petitioner argued that no proceeds of crime were derived from the alleged predicate offence. The respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, had registered the ECIR based on a FIR filed by the CBI, alleging misrepresentation by the petitioner company in obtaining a coal block allotment. However, a closure report was filed stating no offence was committed by the petitioner, pending consideration before the Special Judge, CBI.

2. The petitioner also sought the quashing of the Seizure Memo dated 23.11.2016 under Section 17(1) of PMLA, along with related orders. The petitioner contended that the initial action was illegal. The High Court noted the difficulty in understanding the proposed action by the Directorate of Enforcement after a significant delay of over four years since the filing of the FIR. Despite being inclined to entertain the petition, the Court observed that an appeal had already been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, addressing similar issues as raised in the petition. Consequently, the Court decided not to entertain the petition.

3. While refusing to entertain the petition, the High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's appeal, preferably within eight weeks. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply if the Directorate of Enforcement takes further action. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending applications also being disposed of.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of expeditious consideration of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, given the similarities in the issues raised in the appeal and the dismissed petition. The Court's decision not to entertain the petition was based on the pendency of the appeal, ensuring that the issues could be addressed through the appellate process. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to seek redress in case of any further action by the Directorate of Enforcement. The order was issued for immediate compliance, with the judgment being concluded and applications disposed of accordingly.