9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1308 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - scheduled offences - challenge to provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002 - Distribution of exorbitant and unjustified compensation to farmers with the intention of getting monetary benefits - misappropriation of government funds by way of granting compensation on acquisition of land at non-agricultural rate for the agricultural land which resulted into loss to Government - Non-completion/concluding of adjudication proceedings within prescribed period of 180 days - No scheduled offence and offence of money laundering is made out as per the observation of Ld. Special Judge (PMLA), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Non-completion/concluding of adjudication proceedings within prescribed period of 180 days - HELD THAT - The issue was meticulously considered and decided by the Telangana High Court. It is after taking note of the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited 2022 (2) TMI 1268 - SUPREME COURT . The Judgement in the case of Prakash Corporates 2022 (2) TMI 1268 - SUPREME COURT has distinguished its earlier Judgement in the case of S. Kasi v. State 2020 (6) TMI 727 - SUPREME COURT . The Judgement in the case of S. Kasi was discussed therein and found it to be in reference to Article 21 of the Constitution of India whereas the case of attachment of properties is not governed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The attachment would lapse in the present case because the period subsequent to 15.03.2020 is to be eliminated for determination of the period of 180 days and in that case, the impugned order of attachment would not lapse. No scheduled offence and offence of money laundering is made out as per the observation of Ld. Special Judge (PMLA), Dehradun, Uttarakhand - HELD THAT - The High Court found a case under the Act of 2002 after considering all the relevant facts which includes the order passed by the Arbitrator - the argument alleging non commission of crime under section 3 of the Act of 2002 would not be made out. No direct nexus found between scheduled offence and properties in question vis- -vis principle of value thereof - HELD THAT - he issue is otherwise covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal wherein the similar argument that the value of any such property would apply only when property is held outside the country was not accepted. The appellant Dinesh Pratap Singh has even referred to the balance of Rs. 25,51,000/- in his bank account to justify the purchase of property apart from his agriculture income in the different financial years without referring to any document to prove the agriculture income other than the assessment order, if any, because agriculture produced is to be disclosed in the revenue record and otherwise by producing the receipt of amount on sale of the produce. The appellant has failed to submit any document to prove the same and accordingly we find that in the absence of the proof of source to acquire the property and that too worth of crores by the two appellants, it was rightly attached by the respondents. Since, total value of the proceeds was available with the appellant having vanished, the other properties and the value of any other property was attached. There are no substance in the issue and is rejected. Non-satisfaction of basic ingredients of offence of money laundering - HELD THAT - The appellant has submitted that basic ingredient of section 3 of the Act of 2002 is not made out whereas according to the respondent and in the opinion of the Tribunal the ingredient of section 3 has been satisfied which would reveal from the Judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of the appellant himself - the issue has no substance. Non-recording of reasons to believe as prescribed under Section 5 of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the procedure aforesaid was applied and therefore only the Adjudicating Authority issued notice to the appellant to disclose the source of income as per section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. The finding has been recorded on the offence and acquisition of the proceeds of crime - the ground is not made out to cause interference in the order. Non-consideration of merits and demerits of the case by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - The last argument raised by the appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to make consideration of any of the issue raised by the appellant. Reference to the Judgment of Delhi High Court has been given - The position of the fact is that now this Tribunal has taken up each issue raised by the appellant and the order has been passed in reference to each issue. It is after analyzing the issue separately. Even the impugned order has been passed by using the technology of cut-copy-paste without appreciating the material on record -the impugned attachment order passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority may be set-aside - the last issue raised by the appellant remains of no consequence. There are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-completion of adjudication proceedings within the prescribed period of 180 days. 2. No scheduled offence and offence of money laundering is made out. 3. No direct nexus found between the scheduled offence and properties in question vis-`a-vis principle of value thereof. 4. Non-satisfaction of basic ingredients of the offence of money laundering. 5. Non-recording of "reasons to believe" as prescribed under Section 5 of PMLA, 2002. 6. Non-consideration of merits and demerits of the case by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue A: Non-completion of adjudication proceedings within the prescribed period of 180 days The appellant argued that the adjudication proceedings were concluded beyond the statutory period of 180 days, thus rendering the attachment order invalid. The Tribunal considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the extension of statutory timelines by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal referred to the Telangana High Court's judgment in Hygro Chemicals Pharmtek Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India, which held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded in computing the 180-day period. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument, as the extension due to COVID-19 meant the attachment order did not lapse. Issue B: No scheduled offence and offence of money laundering is made out The appellant contended that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA cannot stand alone without a predicate offence. The Tribunal referred to the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment in the appellant's own case, where it was held that a prima facie case under the PMLA was made out. The High Court found that the appellant, in connivance with others, manipulated land records to grant excessive compensation, thereby generating "proceeds of crime." The Tribunal noted that the High Court's detailed judgment dismissed the appellant's writ petition and upheld the cognizance of the offence, thereby rejecting the appellant's argument on this issue. Issue C: No direct nexus found between the scheduled offence and properties in question vis-`a-vis principle of value thereof The appellant argued that there was no direct nexus between the alleged offence and the attached properties, which were acquired from legitimate sources. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Enforcement Directorate v. Axis Bank, which clarified that even untainted properties could be attached if they were equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which upheld the attachment of properties of equivalent value when the actual proceeds of crime were not traceable. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to disclose legitimate sources for acquiring the properties and upheld the attachment. Issue D: Non-satisfaction of basic ingredients of the offence of money laundering The appellant claimed that the basic ingredients of the offence of money laundering, such as concealment, possession, or use of proceeds of crime, were not satisfied. The Tribunal, relying on the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment, found that the appellant was involved in activities connected with the generation of "proceeds of crime," thereby satisfying the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument on this issue. Issue E: Non-recording of "reasons to believe" as prescribed under Section 5 of PMLA, 2002 The appellant contended that the "reasons to believe" were not recorded as required under Section 5(1) of PMLA. The Tribunal found that the procedure was duly followed, and the reasons were recorded in writing and sent to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed cover. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority proceeded only after finding reasons to believe that an offence under Section 3 was committed. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument on this ground. Issue F: Non-consideration of merits and demerits of the case by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the merits and demerits of the case. The Tribunal, having analyzed each issue separately, found that the Adjudicating Authority had duly considered the relevant facts and issues. The Tribunal noted that it had addressed each argument raised by the appellant in detail, thereby rendering this issue inconsequential. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the attachment order under PMLA.
|
