2023 (4) TMI 444 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled/predicate offence - monetary limit involved in the offence of money laundering - crux of the case is under Part-B of the Schedule under which the total value should be Rs. 1/- crore or more for the offence of money laundering to be brought against any person - issue in the case at hand as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Legislature has consciously introduced minimum value by amending the definition from time to time - HELD THAT - A charge sheet comes to be filed in C.C. No. 15987 of 2012 against the petitioner and several others on 08.06.2012. If the charge sheet is taken note of, it is for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 477(a), 409 and 34 of the IPC. The attachment orders attaching the properties of the petitioner is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that they are proceeds of crime. Cognizance is taken by the Special Court on a private complaint so filed by the ED in P.C.R. No. 25 of 2020. It is not only against the petitioner but, it is against 66 Officers and the total amount involved against all those Officers put together is Rs. 9,03,89,803/-. Summons was issued to the petitioner on 07-05-2018 and 13.08.2018 and his voluntary statements were recorded under Section 50(3) of the Act on two dates i.e., on 24-05-2018 and 17-09-2018. It is his own statement that he has received an amount of Rs. 1,05,66,288/-. Therefore, the contention that the charge sheet in the predicate offence alleges that the petitioner is involved only in an offence to which the proceeds of crime indicates that it is Rs. 46,46,225/-is unacceptable as on questioning the petitioner, he himself has given the details about all the immovable properties possessed by him and the amount received in terms of the table given by him was Rs. 1,05,66,288/-. Therefore, it is well within the amount stipulated under Section 2(y) of the Act - there is no warrant of interference at this juncture particularly, in the teeth of the fact that further investigation against all others is pending consideration. In the event, the petitioner would get absolved of the allegations in the charge sheet, it would be an altogether different circumstance. There need not be any interpretation of definition of 'scheduled offence' and its threshold limit. That situation is yet to come about. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Enforcement Directorate to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act based on the value of the scheduled offence.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The petitioner argued that the scheduled offence's value did not meet the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore as required by the Act. The petitioner contended that the total value involved in the predicate offence was only Rs. 46,36,843, which did not justify the initiation of proceedings under the Act.

In response, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the total value of all eight persons involved in the crime exceeded the minimum threshold required by the Act. The respondent emphasized that the matter should proceed to trial for the petitioner to prove innocence rather than dismissing the case based on the value attributed to the petitioner alone.

The court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 2(y) defining a 'scheduled offence' and Section 3 outlining the offence of money laundering. The court noted that the Act required a minimum value of Rs. 1 crore for a scheduled offence to trigger money laundering charges. The court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner and the total value involved in the case, which exceeded the threshold amount when considering all individuals involved.

The court highlighted that the complaint against 66 individuals indicated a total amount of money laundered exceeding Rs. 9 crores. The court emphasized that the individual attributes of each accused were yet to be fully revealed, indicating that further investigation was pending. The court concluded that the petitioner's argument regarding the scheduled offence's value being insufficient was premature, as the full extent of money laundering allegations had not been established.

Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition, stating that any decision on the interpretation of a 'scheduled offence' and its threshold limit would be premature until further investigation and trial proceedings unfolded.