2023 (5) TMI 660 - HC - Money Laundering

Principles of natural justice - Non-service of proper SCN - Provisional Attachment Order - Money laundering - proceeds of crime - investing part of proceeds of crime to purchase properties - HELD THAT - This Court notes with some concern that the impugned email/communication has been written to the promoters of the TDI in respect of the properties which are not even subject matter of any investigation, and that too by Assistant Director, Mr. Hemant, who is not authorised under the PMLA to pass such communications. Though the email is now sought to be withdrawn, it is clear that such an email ought not to have been written in the first place - The higher authorities including the Director, Enforcement Directorate shall be informed of this impugned email which was written in the present case, so that appropriate instructions and directions could be given to the concerned officials of the Enforcement Directorate. The communication dated 26th July, 2019 having been withdrawn, no further orders are called for in this writ petition - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to a communication issued by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regarding the sale, transfer, or lease of certain properties without prior permission.

Details of the Judgment:
The petitioner, Mangalam Infrabuild LLP, challenged a communication dated 26th July, 2019, issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The communication directed that certain properties in TDI City, Kundli-Sonipat cannot be sold, transferred, or leased without prior permission. The challenge was based on the lack of proper notice and provisional attachment as required under the PMLA Act.

In response to the challenge, the Enforcement Directorate informed the court that the communication was being withdrawn. It was noted that the communication was directed to properties not under investigation and was issued by an unauthorized official. The court expressed concern over the issuance of such communication and directed that higher authorities be informed to provide appropriate instructions.

With the communication being withdrawn, the court disposed of the petition and instructed the Enforcement Directorate to inform the recipients of the withdrawn email along with a copy of the court's order.