2021 (7) TMI 1409 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Provisional attachment Order - proceeds of crime - case of appellant is that events in subject matter of the alleged offences for the properties-in-question are stated to be proceeds of crime have occurred much after the date of acquisition of the said properties - typographical errors resulting to show suspicious transactions - connection of petitioners with the accused - HELD THAT - This Court notes that in terms of Section 8 of the PMLA Act the petitioners have been issued show cause notice on 8th June 2021. The matter is pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. The writ petition is premature - question of jurisdiction raised in respect of a quasi judicial proceeding by the writ petitioners is first required to be addressed by the authority created under the statute to adjudicate the matter. The writ petitioners also have a remedy of an appeal before a Tribunal against the order of the adjudicating authority - This Court therefore is of the view that it may be rather premature for the writ petitioner to approach the writ court against the provisional findings by the authority under the statute. This Court directs the adjudicating authority under Section 8 to complete proceeding against the writ petitioners within the period specified under the statute. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the adjudicating authority to any of the parties - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against provisional attachment order under PMLA 2002
2. Allegations of siphoning funds by the petitioners
3. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority
4. Prematurity of the writ petition

The High Court of Calcutta addressed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The properties in question were alleged proceeds of crime related to complaints by nationalized and private banks regarding siphoning of Rs. 552 Crores. The petitioners contended that the events leading to the alleged offenses occurred after the acquisition of the properties, and there were typographical errors in documents suggesting suspicious transactions. The court noted that a show cause notice had been issued under Section 8 of the Act, and the matter was pending before the Adjudicating Authority, rendering the writ premature. The petitioners' connection to the accused entities was disputed, and jurisdiction issues were raised concerning the quasi-judicial proceedings. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority needed to address jurisdiction questions, and the petitioners had the remedy of appealing to a Tribunal. The judgment highlighted that decisions cited by the petitioners were not directly relevant as the adjudication process was incomplete in the current case.

The court directed the adjudicating authority to expedite proceedings within the statutory timeline and instructed against unnecessary adjournments. It emphasized that the authority should independently address all raised questions, including jurisdiction, without influence from prior observations. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition without further adjudication, with no order as to costs. All parties were instructed to comply with the court's directives based on a server copy of the order.