2023 (2) TMI 784 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - provisional attachment of property - gist of the objection raised by the ED is that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the High Court of Jharkhand - HELD THAT - All that the petitioner-company wants is that its property should be released from attachment on its depositing the amount of value thereof . The petitioner-company has not raised any grievance against the investigation or adjudication, or even legality and proprietary of investigation and adjudication proceedings or for that matter against the attachment of other properties of the accused persons. In the present case, the proceeds of crime is in the form of money and in the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint filed by the ED money-trail has been shown to lead to other properties but not to the subject-property. The right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and every citizen of the country has a right to deal with his property in whatsoever manner he wants to enjoy the property which shall include sale, lease, transfer, mortgage etc. Therefore the plea urged on behalf of the ED that the petitioner-company is in possession and enjoying the subject-property is not a valid objection and liable to be rejected summerily. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are plenary in nature and can be exercised by the High Court irrespective of any technical objection raised by the respondent. The prayer for release of the subject-property is accepted. The respondent no.2 is directed to accept the amount of Rs.12 Lakhs tendered by the petitioner-company through bank draft in the name of Directorate of Enforcement payable at Ranchi which shall be deposited in the interest-bearing account till completion of the trial in ECIR/RSZO/01/2015 - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the attachment of the subject property by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand to hear the petition.
3. The petitioner's right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
4. The petitioner's request for the release of the subject property on deposit of the "value thereof."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Attachment of the Subject Property by the Enforcement Directorate (ED):
The petitioner, M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited, sought the release of property attached by the ED, arguing that neither the company nor its directors were involved in money laundering or any related offenses. The property was purchased through a registered sale deed dated 15th June 2016, before the provisional attachment order dated 31st March 2018. The ED attached the property for its "value thereof" amounting to Rs. 12 Lakhs, despite the property not being proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment, citing that criminals often disguise proceeds of crime by converting them into different assets, and thus, any property of equivalent value can be attached.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand to Hear the Petition:
The ED contended that the High Court of Jharkhand lacked jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court's direction that all coal-block allocation cases be investigated and tried in New Delhi. However, the court noted that the subject property and the petitioner-company's registered office were within its territorial jurisdiction. The court also highlighted that the provisional attachment order was passed in Ranchi, and the ED had previously participated in related proceedings in the Jharkhand High Court, indicating an understanding that the court had jurisdiction.

3. The Petitioner's Right to Property Under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India:
The court emphasized that the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, allowing citizens to deal with their property freely. The petitioner's request was for the release of the property upon depositing its "value thereof," not challenging the investigation or adjudication proceedings. The court rejected the ED's objections, stating that technicalities should not impede justice and the petitioner's constitutional rights.

4. The Petitioner's Request for the Release of the Subject Property on Deposit of the "Value Thereof":
The court accepted the petitioner's plea for the release of the attached property upon depositing Rs. 12 Lakhs. It directed the ED to accept the amount through a bank draft and deposit it in an interest-bearing account until the trial's completion. Upon proof of deposit, the ED was instructed to release the property from attachment and inform the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, directing the ED to release the subject property upon the petitioner's deposit of Rs. 12 Lakhs, ensuring the petitioner's constitutional right to property was upheld. The court asserted its jurisdiction and emphasized the importance of addressing injustice over technical objections.