2023 (3) TMI 421 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money laundering - scheduled offences - attachment of property - petitioners have already suffered pre trial custody for more than four years in respect of the scheduled offence, the investigating agency did not arrest the petitioners under Section 19 PMLA when investigation begins, that they are senior citizens of approximately 66 ,70, 68 and 67 years of age respectively and properties of petitioners have even attached and petitioners have deposited the alleged amount of Rs. 11,88,000/- and 50,00,000/- in the respective matters. It is further submitted that the total period of incarceration in case of conviction is only seven years and Section 45 PMLA will not be applicable as it is pre-amendment. HELD THAT - Issue notice. In the meantime, the petitioners be not arrested but shall continue to cooperate with further investigation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from filing documents/facts/annexures and from filing O.T.
2. Pre-trial custody duration exceeding four years.
3. Arrest under Section 19 PMLA.
4. Age of petitioners.
5. Attachment of properties.
6. Deposited amounts in respective matters.
7. Applicability of Section 45 PMLA.
8. Notice issued.
9. Cooperation with further investigation.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court allowed applications for exemption from filing documents/facts/annexures and from filing O.T., as per the order.

2. The learned counsel highlighted that the petitioners had undergone pre-trial custody for over four years regarding the scheduled offence, emphasizing the extended duration of their detention.

3. It was pointed out that the investigating agency did not arrest the petitioners under Section 19 PMLA at the start of the investigation, raising a procedural concern.

4. The ages of the petitioners, who were senior citizens aged around 66, 70, 68, and 67 respectively, were presented as a factor for consideration.

5. Specific properties of the petitioners in certain matters were mentioned to have been attached, with values specified, indicating a financial impact on the petitioners.

6. Details were provided regarding the amounts deposited by the petitioners in their respective cases, showcasing a proactive approach towards addressing the legal issues.

7. The argument was made that the total period of incarceration upon conviction would be seven years, and the applicability of Section 45 PMLA, pre-amendment, was questioned.

8. The Supreme Court issued notice on the matter, signifying the initiation of formal legal proceedings and consideration of the petitioners' claims.

9. The petitioners were directed not to be arrested during the interim period but were instructed to cooperate with further investigation, ensuring compliance with legal requirements while safeguarding their liberty.