9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1449 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Criminal Conspiracy - applied for a loan with fake documents - siphoning off of funds - cheating - predicate offence - statutory presumption - HELD THAT - In Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. others 2007 (8) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has held that the the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not at all be taken into consideration. - It was also held that mere fact that trial of co-accused Daya Singh has concluded cannot have the effect of nullifying or making the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 26.5.2005 as infructuous. Rajendran A6 had voluntarily lent his name for the purchase of the property under the sale deed dated 09.09.2009 with the tainted money that was generated by G.Srinivasan A1 and R.Manoharan A2 by committing a scheduled offence. Under Section 24 of the PMLA there is a statutory presumption which can be discharged only during trial. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the case without in any manner influenced by what is stated are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this quash petition - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Differentiation between the accused in the predicate offence and those in the PMLA prosecution. 3. Legal implications of not being an accused in the predicate offence on PMLA prosecution. 4. Interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Proceedings under PMLA: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2016 under the PMLA. The court noted that in PMLA prosecutions, there are typically two sets of accused: those involved in the predicate offence and those prosecuted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court referred to the ranks of the accused as set out in the impugned complaint to avoid confusion. 2. Differentiation between the Accused in the Predicate Offence and PMLA Prosecution: The court detailed the criminal conspiracy involving G.Srinivasan (A1) and R.Manoharan (A2) who cheated GTFL and obtained a fraudulent loan. The proceeds from this loan were used to purchase properties in the names of various individuals, including the petitioner P.Rajendran (A6). The court highlighted that while some accused were quashed from the PMLA prosecution as innocent purchasers, the present petition was filed by P.Rajendran (A6) to quash the prosecution against him. 3. Legal Implications of Not Being an Accused in the Predicate Offence on PMLA Prosecution: The petitioner argued that since he was not an accused in the CBI case (predicate offence), his prosecution under the PMLA was illegal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case. The court, however, clarified that the Supreme Court's judgment pertains to those named as accused in the predicate offence who are acquitted or discharged. The court emphasized that the PMLA offence is distinct and can involve different persons joining the main accused as abettors or conspirators in laundering the proceeds of crime. 4. Interpretation of the Supreme Court Judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's Case: The petitioner relied on paragraphs 253 and 467(d) of the Supreme Court judgment, which state that prosecution under PMLA cannot be maintained if the accused in the predicate offence is acquitted or the case is quashed. The court distinguished this by stating that these paragraphs apply to those accused in the predicate offence, not to individuals like the petitioner who were not prosecuted in the predicate offence but were involved in laundering the proceeds of crime. The court supported this interpretation by referencing paragraph 271 of the Supreme Court judgment, which explains the stages of money laundering and the involvement of different persons in these stages. Conclusion: The court found that P.Rajendran (A6) had voluntarily lent his name for the purchase of property with tainted money generated by the scheduled offence. Under Section 24 of the PMLA, there is a statutory presumption that can only be discharged during trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the trial court should proceed without being influenced by the observations made for the purpose of disposing of the quash petition.
|
