9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1479 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Challenge to order passed for for maintaining the status quo regarding the release of the attached property - sufficient time has lapsed - HELD THAT - The applicant in this case have offered to substitute thus attached properties as referred above with the bank guarantee of an equivalent amount. It is not the case of the ED that the properties attached were proceeds of crime. The properties attached are the properties of equivalent value of the proceeds of crime. In ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE HYDERABAD VERSUS SMT. Y.S. BHARATHI REDDY 2022 (11) TMI 1488 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT , passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad on an application being moved for release of the properties of equivalent valued allowed the same. It is to be noted that there is a difference between proceeds of crime and amount equivalent to proceeds of crime . In case of attachment of proceeds of crime, the Court may not agree to the request for substitution of the attached property, but in case of attachment being on account of equivalent value of proceeds of crime, the Court may allow substitution of such attached property. It would be in the interest of justice if the properties of Respondent No. 16 and 17 are released on furnishing an FDR in the name of Applicant Company by the Respondent No. 16 and 17. The applicant shall furnish the FDR in the name of the Company of the amount equivalent to the property to be released and deposit the same with the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, HIU with an undertaking that on such FDR there shall have a lien of the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, HIU and in case of ED Succeeds in appeal, the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, HIU shall be at liberty to encash the same. Application disposed off.
Issues involved: Application u/s 482 of Cr. PC for vacating order maintaining status quo regarding release of attached property.
Summary: 1. The application was filed under Section 482 of Cr. PC by two construction companies seeking to vacate an order maintaining status quo on the release of attached property. 2. The original order dated 21.03.2018 required responses to be filed within specific timelines and maintained status quo on the release of attached property. 3. Subsequent applications were made by the respondents, leading to a court order stating that fresh applications for property release could be filed if there was a delay in the main appeal's disposal. 4. The petitioner requested the release of attached properties, offering to provide a bank guarantee. 5. The Special counsel for E.D. opposed the release, citing lack of change in circumstances and legal provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) rules. 6. The E.D. argued that the properties were solely owned by the company, making them ineligible for release under PMLA rules. 7. The E.D. emphasized that statutory procedures must be followed and delay in the case was due to the applicants' actions. 8. The court noted the pending nature of the case and related appeals, and the properties in question were land and buildings with unpaid charges. 9. The court considered the offer of a bank guarantee as a substitute for the attached properties, noting that they were not proven proceeds of crime. 10. A distinction was made between "proceeds of crime" and "amount equivalent to proceeds of crime" regarding property attachment. 11. The court ordered the release of the properties upon the furnishing of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) equivalent to the property value, with specific conditions and undertakings. 12. The FDRs were to be deposited with the Enforcement Directorate, and the court directed the renewal of FDRs as per the law, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. 13. The application was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and the related appeal was listed for a future date.
|
