2018 (2) TMI 2049 - HC - Indian Laws

Money laundering - proceeds of crime - Validity of attachment order - Opportunity of hearing provided or not - HELD THAT - These writ petitions are squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in R. KASANIYA BEGUM VERSUS DY. DIR. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CHENNAI 2018 (9) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which were filed by petitioners and they are the parties to the same impugned order of attachment and the prayer sought for is also identical. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to proceeds of crime under Section 2(u).
2. Offences of money-laundering under Section 3.
3. Provisional attachment of property under Section 5(5) and the requirement to file a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority.

Interpretation of Section 2(u):
The judgment refers to the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u), which states that it includes any property derived from criminal activity. The court emphasizes the importance of understanding this definition in the context of the case. It highlights the significance of determining whether the property in question meets the criteria of being derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or its value.

Offences of Money-Laundering under Section 3:
The judgment delves into the provision of Section 3, which outlines the offence of money-laundering. It mentions that anyone directly or indirectly involved in processes related to proceeds of crime and presenting it as untainted property is guilty of money-laundering. This section is crucial in establishing the legal basis for the actions taken against the petitioners in the case.

Provisional Attachment and Filing of Complaint under Section 5(5):
The court discusses the procedure for provisional attachment of property under Section 5(5) and the subsequent requirement to file a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority within a specified period. It notes that in the case at hand, a complaint was registered after providing the petitioners with an opportunity to respond under Section 50. The court emphasizes that the authorities have the power to proceed against the petitioners based on prima facie material and reasons to believe that they are in possession of proceeds of crime. It clarifies that the petitioners have the right to participate in the investigation and can seek redressal through appropriate legal channels after the completion of the investigation.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the writ petitions based on the earlier order passed by the court, which addressed similar issues and set a precedent. The court finds that the petitions are not maintainable both on merits and the facts of the case. It highlights the petitioners' opportunity to engage in the investigation process and seek legal remedies if needed, emphasizing the importance of due process and legal recourse in such matters.