2022 (4) TMI 1532 - DSC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - scheduled offences - proceeds of crime - agricultural land shown as non-agricultural land - HELD THAT - It is quite clear that during the land acquisition for the widening and construction of NH 74, land of different accused persons named in this complaint as accused was acquired which was actually agricultural land and with the connivance of some government officials various conspiracies were hatched by different land owners to declare their land as non agricultural land to get 10 to 12 times more compensation. Each and every such conspiracy constituted a different offence and these all offences generated different Proceeds of Crime (POC). The main offence which generated this Proceed of Crime (POC) falls within the category of scheduled offence, therefore, Directorate of Enforcement initiated investigation with regard to laundering of this money which was actually the Proceeds of Crime (POC) generated by these different offences - The averments in this complaint are clear that different offences were committed by different persons and these different offences generated different POC, however this complaint is filed after clubbing all these Proceeds of Crime (POC) in one investigation, whereas every money laundering of each and every Proceed of Crime (POC) is a distinct offence under section 3 of the PMLA punishable under section 4 of the PMLA. In the present case all accused persons have not committed the offence of Money Laundering in the course of the same transaction because different POCs were generated in different crimes and all accused persons are not involved in the Money Laundering of each and every POCs. If the cognizance is taken on this complaint then at one hand it would infact initiate a joint trial of different offenders by this Court in contravention of Section 223 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the other hand it would complicate the trial and delay the recording of the evidences. Besides this it would result in converting multiple offences of Money Laundering committed by some common accused persons viz A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 into one single offence of Money Laundering, thus would result into minimasing the penalty. It would further be in contravention of the principles of joinder of charges as enshrined in sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Therefore this complaint is liable to be returned to complainant, Directorate of Enforcement for filing fresh and separate complaints in accordance with the provisions of section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by considering each act of money laundering of various POCs a distinct offence of Money Laundering under section 3 of PMLA which is punishable under section 4 of the PMLA. This complaint is returned to the complainant i.e. Directorate of Enforcement for filing fresh complaints in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Complaint filed under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against multiple accused persons for trial under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
2. Allegations of illegal activities related to land acquisition for widening NH 74 leading to inflated compensation causing significant revenue loss.
3. Investigation by Special Investigation Team (SIT) resulting in multiple charge-sheets against different accused persons.
4. Directorate of Enforcement initiating investigation for money laundering of proceeds generated by various offenses.
5. Question of whether the complaint should be treated as a single offense of money laundering or distinct offenses for each Proceed of Crime (POC).
6. Implications of joint trial of different offenders, complexity, and delay in proceedings if the complaint is not returned for separate filings.
7. Compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding joinder of charges and principles of separate offenses for each POC.

Analysis:
1. The complaint under sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA involves multiple accused persons linked to offenses under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, arising from illegal activities during land acquisition for NH 74 widening, resulting in substantial revenue loss.
2. The investigation by the SIT led to the filing of several charge-sheets against different accused individuals, highlighting the complexity and scale of the alleged offenses.
3. The Directorate of Enforcement initiated a probe into money laundering of proceeds from various offenses, emphasizing the need to address each Proceed of Crime (POC) as a distinct offense under the PMLA.
4. The judgment raises the issue of whether the complaint should be treated as a single offense of money laundering or if separate filings are required for each POC, in line with legal provisions.
5. Concerns regarding joint trials, procedural delays, and the impact on penalties if the complaint is not returned for separate filings are highlighted, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The court determined that the complaint should be returned to the Directorate of Enforcement for filing fresh and separate complaints, ensuring that each act of money laundering related to different POCs is treated as a distinct offense under the PMLA, aligning with legal requirements and procedural fairness.