2024 (10) TMI 1406 - HC - Money Laundering

Availability of statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Refund of money deposited with interest - HELD THAT - This Court has not gone into the merits of the claim, which shall be considered by the court concerned in accordance with law and in accordance with the merits of the case, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order. Certified copy of this order along with claims shall be filed before court concerned within ten days. The decision shall be taken by the court concerned on the claim in accordance with law and on the basis of material brought before the court by the petitioner in support of his claim. The present writ petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writ for mandamus to consider case in light of previous order; Refund of money deposited with interest; Interpretation of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, specifically Section 8.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus to compel the court concerned to consider their case in light of a previous order. The main prayer was for the court to issue directions based on an order dated 01.07.2024 passed in another case. The petitioner also requested the return of money deposited with interest by them and other investors. The respondent, Enforcement Directorate, pointed out that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The respondent argued that the money sought to be refunded falls under the definition of "property" in Section 2(1)(v) of the Act. The court considered the contentions of both parties and examined the provisions of Section 2(1)(v) and Section 8 of the Act.

The court referred to the definitions provided in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, specifically Section 2(1)(v) and Section 8. Section 2(1)(v) defines "property" in a broad manner, including various types of assets and deeds. It clarifies that the term "property" encompasses assets used in the commission of an offense under the Act or scheduled offenses. Section 8 deals with adjudication and outlines the process to be followed by the Adjudicating Authority upon receiving a complaint or application related to offenses or proceeds of crime under the Act. The provisions detail the steps to be taken by the Authority, including serving notices, considering replies, hearing concerned parties, and making findings regarding properties involved in money laundering.

The court emphasized that the petitioner should file their claim as per Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the relevant court. It directed the petitioner to raise their claim before the court concerned along with a certified copy of the court's order. The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the claim, leaving it to be considered by the court concerned in accordance with the law and based on the material presented. The court ordered the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order along with their claims before the relevant court within a specified timeframe. The decision on the claim was to be made by the court concerned following due process and based on the evidence provided by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue their claim under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the appropriate court. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and presenting relevant evidence for the court's consideration in such matters.