9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 276 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Attachment of property involved in money-laundering - Held that - In the present case, defendant No.3 has challenged the order of attachment passed by the authorities in respect of the property which does not belong to him. The subject matter of the present appeal is not the prosecution launched against the defendant No.3. As we have already indicated that it will be open to the defendant No.3 to consider for applying for discharge, in case so advised. We make it clear that the learned Judge seized of the criminal case will decide the same on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law, uninfluenced made in the impugned orders and this order. All contentions of the parties on merits in that regard are expressly kept open. In the result, we find merit in the submission of the respondents that defendant No.3 has no locus to challenge the orders of attachment. Appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to Provisional Attachment Orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Orders by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. Dismissal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Locus standi of the appellant to challenge the attachment orders. 5. Retrospective application of the PMLA provisions. 6. Impleading of M.S.T.C. as a respondent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Provisional Attachment Orders under the PMLA: The appellant challenged the Provisional Attachment Orders dated 20.12.2013 and 19.09.2014 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. These orders provisionally attached ?2.5 crores in the current account of M/s. Skylark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 2. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Orders by the Adjudicating Authority: The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Orders on 22.05.2014 and 01.01.2015. The appellant contended that these orders were perverse and did not consider that the alleged money laundering acts occurred before the inclusion of the relevant offences in the Schedule of the PMLA on 01.06.2009. 3. Dismissal of Appeals by the Appellate Tribunal: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 10.03.2015 and 15.06.2015, stating that the appellant had no locus to challenge the attachment orders as none of his properties were attached. The Tribunal's orders were primarily based on the fact that the appellant admitted that his properties were not attached. 4. Locus Standi of the Appellant to Challenge the Attachment Orders: The court analyzed whether the appellant had the locus standi to challenge the attachment orders. It was noted that the attached property belonged to M/s. Skylark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and not the appellant. The Tribunal and the court concluded that the appellant had no locus to maintain the appeal as his property was not attached. 5. Retrospective Application of the PMLA Provisions: The appellant argued that the alleged money laundering acts took place in 2007-08, prior to the inclusion of the relevant offences in the Schedule of the PMLA on 01.06.2009. The court referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. and agreed that the PMLA provisions could not be applied retrospectively. However, this issue was not central to the current appeal, which focused on the attachment of property. 6. Impleading of M.S.T.C. as a Respondent: The appellant sought to add M.S.T.C. as a respondent, arguing that it was a necessary party. The court dismissed this application, noting that M.S.T.C. was not a party before the Deputy Director, the Adjudicating Authority, or the Appellate Tribunal. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, concluding that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the attachment orders. The court emphasized that the appellant's property was not attached and that the observations made in the impugned orders were interlocutory and did not decide the guilt or innocence regarding the alleged offences. The court also rejected the applications to implead M.S.T.C. as a respondent, as it was not a party in the proceedings before the lower authorities.
|
