2022 (4) TMI 1619 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation - provisional order of attachment - HELD THAT - Admittedly, no notice was served on Amarabalan either in the proceedings relating to the provisional order of attachment in PAO No. 20 of 2016 or in the confirmation proceedings in OC No.636 of 2016 dated 03.02.2017 passed under Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Admittedly, Sridhar also died on 05.10.2017 in Cambodia. Hence the criminal prosecution in S.C. No.74 of 2017 that has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate against him in the Special Court, Chennai for the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would stand automatically abated qua Sridhar. Taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that the interests of justice would be served if the provisional order of attachment in PAO No.20 of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 as confirmed in OC No.636 of 2016 dated 03.02.2017 are set aside qua the subject property alone and the attachment on the subject property be lifted as no notice was served on Amarabalan in both these proceedings, though the subject property stood in his name as on those two dates - The Joint Sub Registrar - II, Kanchipuram is directed to delete the entries relating to the provisional attachment order in PAO No.20 of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 and the reference to confirmation order in OC No.636 of 2016 dated 03.02.2017 as communicated by the Enforcement Directorate by the letter dated 16.02.2017. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to consider petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2021.
2. Dispute over a vacant land in Kancheepuram Town.
3. Enforcement Directorate's provisional attachment of subject property under PMLA.
4. Lack of notice to petitioner in attachment proceedings.
5. Death of the accused and implications on criminal prosecution.
6. Applicability of appeal process in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
7. Decision on setting aside the attachment and lifting the encumbrance on subject property.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for considering their representation dated 09.08.2021.
2. The dispute involved a vacant land in Kancheepuram Town, originally belonging to R.Bharani, forcibly acquired by Sridhar and later settled back to Bharani's family.
3. The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached the subject property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) due to scheduled offenses against Sridhar.
4. Notice regarding the attachment was only sent to Sridhar, not to the petitioner Amarabalan, despite the property being in the latter's name.
5. With Sridhar's death, the criminal prosecution against him automatically abated, impacting the proceedings.
6. While an appeal process exists under the PMLA, the court decided not to involve the petitioner due to lack of notice and the absence of a Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal.
7. Considering the circumstances, the court set aside the attachment on the subject property and directed the removal of encumbrances, as no notice was served on the petitioner during the attachment proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal proceedings, the lack of notice to the petitioner, implications of the accused's death on prosecution, and the court's decision to lift the attachment on the subject property.