|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2017 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1402
Seeking grant of regular bail - prolonged detention - right to speedy trial - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - alleged AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scam - routing illicit funds through shell companies - alleged bribe payments through middlemen - HELD THAT:- This Court notes that the learned counsel for the applicant primarily argued the present bail application on the ground of delay in concluding investigation and consequently the trial, and placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the applicant herein has been granted bail in the predicate offence – on the ground of delay in trial itself - this Court has given consideration to the material placed on record as well as the stage of the investigation and the fact that in the present case, though the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than six years, investigation in the case has yet not been concluded, charges have not been framed and the trial has not begun.
This Court while deciding the present bail application, in the backdrop of the fact that applicant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the predicate offence, has considered the issue of grant of bail to the applicant viz-a-viz the delay in conclusion of investigation and initiation of trial, especially the fact that the applicant has almost completed the period of judicial custody equivalent to the maximum punishment attracted in the present case i.e. under Section 4 of PMLA. Considering these circumstances, the merits of the allegations against the applicant were not considered at this stage.
In cases under PMLA, while the legislature has incorporated stringent provisions such as Section 45 to regulate the grant of bail, by prescribing the twin test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that such provisions must be harmoniously interpreted with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that the statutory bar under such bail provisions cannot be permitted to override an accused’s right to speedy trial, nor can statutory restrictions be construed as a tool for indefinite incarceration.
In Prem Prakash v. Union of India [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and held that keeping persons behind bars for unlimited periods of time, in the hope of speedy completion of trial, would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21.
This Court is of the view that while Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, constitutional courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have also emphasized time and again that this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner, to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in multiple decisions, has held that the right to bail must be read into such provisions where there is an inordinate delay in the completion of trial which effectively converts pre-trial custody into a punitive sentence.
The present case presents an exceptional situation where the applicant has already been in custody for over six years and two months, yet the trial has not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation. Such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. is a statutory safeguard designed to prevent excessive and disproportionate pre-trial detention. It provides that an accused, who has undergone detention for a period equivalent to one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the court, for reasons recorded in writing, directs otherwise. In the context of offences under PMLA, where the maximum sentence is ordinarily seven years, the one-half threshold would be three and a half years. Although the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. allows the court to extend the period of detention beyond the one-half threshold based on the facts of the case, yet such extended detention cannot be indefinite and the Courts must assess the necessity of continued incarceration in light of the specific facts, the stage of the trial, and the overall interests of justice.
While the proviso to Section 436A allows courts to extend detention beyond this period in exceptional circumstances, the present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months – which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment – without even being adjudicated guilty. It was pointed out that more than 100 witnesses are to be examined in the present case and there are more than 1000 documents relied upon by the prosecution. Given that the trial is unlikely to conclude before the applicant completes even seven years in jail, further incarceration would render the entire purpose of a trial meaningless.
In this Court’s opinion, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, of about six years and two months, and the fact that investigation is not yet complete and trial has not yet begun, and there are more than 100 witness to be examined in this case, would entitle him to grant of regular bail, thereby overriding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C.
Considering the period of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the applicant, and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun, and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, inasmuch as the same has not even begun as of now, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant, on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of ₹5,00,000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court, which be not released without permission of this Court, considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending.
Conclusion - The applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1354
Condonation of delay of 708 days in filling the Appeal - Money Laundering - challenge to provisional attachment order - sufficient cause for delay or not - merger of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the order, confirming the provisional attachment was passed on 01st June, 2016 and it is the admitted position that the same was received on 03rd June, 2016 by the bank - In the opinion of this Court, the merger of the Transferor Bank (ING Vysya Bank) with Kotak Mahindra Bank in April, 2015, is a justifiable reason and cause that could have resulted in the delay.
Upon the perusal of Section 26 of the PMLA, it would show that after the initial period of 45 days, there is no outer limit prescribed and the question would be whether there is sufficient cause or not - firstly, there is no outer limit and there is also no negative stipulation that delay beyond a particular period would not be condonable.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Directorate of Enforcement v. O P Nahar [2022 (5) TMI 1362 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while adjudicating an appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal wherein the appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA was rejected due to delay of 204 days in its filing. The Court condoned the delay and inter alia held that the Appellant therein sufficiently explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
This Court takes into consideration the fact that the Appellant is a bank and since it was going through the merger process, it cannot be said that the delay is completely inexplicable. Mergers of banks would involve complicated processes, technological integration, customer integration, staff related issues, compliances etc., have to be put in place. This could have delayed the filing of the appeal due to various procedural and administrative reasons.
Conclusion - The merger process provides a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The merger process provided a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits - The appeal shall now be restored to its original number before the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1353
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Provisional Attachment Order - diversion of depositors amount to personal accounts routed through company’s bank accounts for wrongful gain and amassed huge movable and immovable assets by utilizing illegally gained money of depositors - impact of a civil court decree in favor of the appellants regarding the title and possession of the disputed property - HELD THAT:- The property in question was existing in the name of Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. of Hyderabad on the payment of consideration of Rs.5 Crores and other amount of Rs. 2 Crore paid by M/s Heera Gold Exim Ltd. and Rs.3.48 Crore by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. much prior to the decree dated 19.11.2018. The statement given above shows that the property in question was existing in the name of M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. out of proceeds of crime much prior to the decree and was not challenged in the suit and M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd. was not even made party to the suit.
Apart from the Civil Suit, the appellant even preferred a Writ Petition No. 15019/2019 to challenge the attachment of the property under the Act of 1999. The Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to avail alternate remedy under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1999. The appellant accordingly approached the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to challenge the order of attachment under the Act of 1999. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the application preferred by the appellant. It was based on the Civil Decree ignoring the fact as to whom it would be binding and how the decree was taken by the appellant. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge though took note of the fact that the property was conveyed in favour of M/s Heera Group of companies who was none else but accused. It ignored consequence of sale deed in favour of M/s Heera Group of companies which has purchased the property out of the proceeds of crime. It was made party to the civil suit yet, an order was passed against the interest of the company holding the property. The accused was otherwise not interested to pursue the claim because in that case, it would have been auctioned in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court.
In the instance case, M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd, was not party to the suit, despite purchase of the property and whose sale deed was never challenged. The decree cannot operate against it. Since the property was owned by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of main accused Smt. Nowhera Shaik, we do not find any illegality in the attachment as the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the group company of accused M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla Vs. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. [2007 (10) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT] held that persons not parties to the suit would not be bound by the decree.
The claim of the appellants based on collusive decree by City Civil Court cannot be accepted against others than party to the suit. It is more so when it is going against the sale deed executed in favour of the accused’s Company M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. and remain unchallenged. No suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed against the said Company and even the sale deed in favour of M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.
The claim of the appellants is based on the Civil Suitwhere M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. was not a party. The decree in the Civil Suit binds only the parties and not the others. The property came to the accused’s company pursuant to the sale deed in its favour in the year 2016 by M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. who was holding it under the deed and whose title and sale deed was never challenged by the appellants even while filing a suit to claim their right. The execution of sale deed was in the knowledge of the appellant as is coming out from the suit yet it was not challenged. The accused colluded with the appellants after registration of the FIR in the year 2012. The suit was not contested by M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. after a sale deed in favour of M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. The property of the accused M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. has been attached as it was purchased out of the proceeds of crime. Thus, there is no case to cause interference in the impugned orders.
The order produced before this Tribunal is dated 28.03.2023 where a detailed order was passed for settling the dues of the investors and therein it was made clear that the property attached by the ED can be released for realization of the dues if the prospective purchasers are willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 641 crores and in that case, the attachment of the ED would be lifted but leaving the parties to take remedies for their respective rights - The subsequent order produced before us is dated 11.11.2024. The reference of the order of the Apex Court has been given to clarify that confirmation of attachment would not in any way affect the investors for realization of the amount, rather the order passed by us would also remain subject to the further direction of the Apex Court in pending cases. The detailed order is, however, passed by this Tribunal to clarify the claim of the appellants. This is not a case to cause interference in the orders.
Conclusion - The decree cannot operate against a person who was not party to the suit. Since the property was owned by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused Smt. Nowhera Shaik, there are no illegality in the attachment as the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the group company of accused M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1252
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner, which is not maintainable - Money Laundering - Issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner - Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - issuance of summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002.
Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner, which is not maintainable - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner is at Dubai who executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr. Khemraj Sinha, resident of Adivasi Colony, Kushalpur, Raipur (C.G.), who sworn an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition. The respondent/ED has relied upon the judgment of Amrinder Singh @ Raja (supra) and in Para 7 and 8, it would rely upon the judgment of Amit Ahuja [2010 (5) TMI 962 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and T.C. Mathai [1999 (3) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT].
There is nothing on record to show that the power of attorney of the petitioner is disabled by filing affidavit in support of the petition or the petition filed through power of attorney is not maintainable. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition through power of attorney holder is not sustainable and hereby rejected.
Applicability and procedural compliance of summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 to a person residing outside India - HELD THAT:- When the ED found sufficient evidence against the petitioner that he actively involved in the illegal operation of Mahadev Operation Book, he issued the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 to the address of the petitioner available with the ED and asked to appear on 02.09.2023 and 04.09.2023. Since the petitioner did not join the investigation, the ED apply under Section 70 of CRPC for issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner on 04.09.2023. The petitioner had obtained citizenship of a small island nation Vanuatu, which does not have any extradition treaty or arrangement with India, clearly evident that the petitioner did not intend to join the investigation and therefore, the application for issuance of non-bailable warrant was filed before the learned Special Court. The learned Special Court has ample power to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused when he failed to cooperate and deliberately avoided the process of law.
It is apparent from the reading of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 as well as the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that the power conferred upon the ED by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 empowers them to summon any person whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any record during the course of investigation or proceeding under the PMLA-2002. The persons, so summoned, are also bound to attend in person or through authorized agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and to produce document, as may be required in the case.
In the present case, the investigation conducted by the State Police in FIR No. 206 of 2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam Commissionorate under the scheduled offences, which revealed that the money made via the app was transferred to different accounts till it was siphoned off to a person named Sourabh Chandrakar, a native of Chhattisgarh, who presently lives in Dubai - The FIR was one of scheduled offences included in the ECIR recorded in respect of the petitioner. Statements of the close friends and associates of the petitioner were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 and they disclosed that the petitioner is one of the main promoters of Mahadev Online Book and this was further corroborated by the digital evidence gathered during investigation.
Conclusion - Considering all these evidences, learned Special Court, on being application made by the ED, issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, and the learned Special Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to issue said non-bailable warrant. It is settled law that the provisions of PMLA-2002 are not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence, but it would apply to any person if he is involved in any process or activities connected with the proceeds of crime and as per the investigation, the petitioner was found involved in possession of proceeds of crime, emanating out of the operation of Mahadev Online Book.
There are no ground to disagree with the order dated 04.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Court (PMLA-2002), by which the non-bailable warrant (open-ended) is issued against the petitioner and to interfere with the same - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1251
Seeking grant of Regular bail - petitioner qualifies as 'sick or infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or not - petitioner is 86 years old and is suffering from multiple ailments - Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA - requirement to fulfil triple test - delay in trial - HELD THAT:- A purposive interpretation of the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA indicates that it was included as a lenient measure to provide ‘relaxation’ for a sick or infirm individual, as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the PMLA.
What is the level of sickness that qualifies an accused as ‘sick’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA? - HELD THAT:- While there is no strict formula to determine the level of illness required for bail under this proviso, the general guideline is that when the sickness is serious enough to pose a threat to life and requires medical assistance and treatment which is specialized and unavailable in jail facilities, the accused should be granted bail under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA. However, this is not an exhaustive criterion and each case should be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances.
In the present case, the medical board of AIIMS, Delhi constituted vide Order dated 18.09.2023 submitted its report on 04.12.2023. The medical assessment of the petitioner by the board was conducted on 18.10.2023 and 22.10.2023 - A division bench of this Court in Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal, [2021 (12) TMI 1431 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that the courts cannot sit in appeal of the opinion of the medical board as the judges are not experts in medical fields. Thus, an opinion of doctors who are experts cannot be supplanted by a court overstepping its jurisdiction.
Thus, the petitioner is not ‘sick’ to fall within the ambit of proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA since the petitioner can be treated in jail for the ailment as categorically opined by the medical board.
Admittedly, the petitioner, aged 86, suffers from cognitive impairment, pseudodementia and recurrent dizziness, along with a history of falls. A medical board from AIIMS has recommended that he requires constant monitoring due to the risk of falls. Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities. Furthermore, considering his age, the likelihood of improvement in his age-related infirmities is minimal and it is expected that his condition will continue to decline - beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation. Thus, the aforementioned infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant ‘monitoring’ coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness makes the petitioner ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA.
The petitioner falls within the ambit of ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA and thus, he is not required to meet the twin test of section 45 (1) of PMLA.
Requirement of fulfilment of triple test of Flight risk, Influencing any witness and Tampering with evidence - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been released on interim bail since 08.08.2022 on medical grounds and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty by him while on bail - As regards the flight risk, adequate restrictions can be imposed upon the petitioner - the petitioner meets the triple test for grant of bail.
Delay in trial - HELD THAT:- There are 17 accused persons, 66 companies, 121 witnesses and 77,812 pages of documents plus enormous digital data which needs to be analysed in the present case. Thus, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in the near future - In the case of Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 (10) TMI 1351 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that the right of the accused to speedy trial is an important aspect which the courts must keep in contemplation while deciding a bail application as the same is higher sacrosanct constitutional right, which ought to take precedence.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner falls within the ambit of 'infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, exempting him from the stringent bail conditions typically required under this section. ii) The petitioner satisfies the triple test for bail, as there is no substantial evidence of flight risk, witness influence, or evidence tampering. iii) The delay in trial proceedings, coupled with the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, warrants the granting of bail.
The petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1250
Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 - If the complaint in regard to a scheduled offence has been quashed, the complaint under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002 pertaining to some scheduled offence is maintainable or not? - HELD THAT:- Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulates punishment in the case of fraud involving an amount of at least Rs. 10 Lakh. An offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, is a scheduled offence for the purposes of the PMLA, 2002 and as per Paragraph 29 of the schedule appended to PMLA, 2002, an offence under Section 447, which stipulates punishment for fraud, is a scheduled offence - The expression “scheduled offence” has been defined in Section 2(1)(y). This provision assumes significance as it has direct link with the definition of “proceeds of crime”. In that, the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to notified offences, termed as scheduled offence, is regarded as tainted property and dealing with such property in any manner is an offence of money-laundering. The Schedule is in three parts, namely, Part A, B and C. Part A of the Schedule consists of 29 paragraphs. These paragraphs deal with respective enactments and the offences specified thereunder which are regarded as scheduled offences. Similarly, Part B deals with offence under the Customs Act specifically and Part C is in relation to offence of cross-border implications.
The Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] in Para-107 observed that a property derived directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence would be liable for prosecution under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. The Apex Court further held that the explanation, which is added to Section 2(1)(u) and which provides for definition of proceeds of crime, does not travel beyond the intent of tracking and reaching up to the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence.
The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that the property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, can be regarded as proceeds of crime and other property, which has no nexus with any scheduled offence, cannot be brought within the ambit of the proceeds of crime.
It is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court concluded that the prosecution launched under Section 447 of the Companies Act as was an attempt to apply statutory provision with retrospective effect, which was not permissible and therefore, concluded that the prosecution was illegal. Even the co-ordinate Bench proceeded ahead to label the prosecution to be malicious. The Court also concluded that upon due consideration of the allegations as set out in the FIR, if the offence registered is not formulated and the prosecution is considered to be malicious, the proceedings can be quashed.
Conclusion - The proceedings under the PMLA, 2002, could not be maintained against the applicant due to the quashment of the predicate offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1189
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Scheduled offences - attachment of bank accounts, movable as well as immpovable properties - reasons to believe - When the alleged proceeds of crime already stand seized by another law enforcement authority, i.e., the DRI, and same are in its possession, and therefore wholly outside the control and reach of the appellants, how could the respondent Directorate have justifiably entertained the reason to believe under the Second Proviso to section 5(1) that if such property is not attached immediately, the non- attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act? - HELD THAT:- The only offences that have been made out against the appellants are the offences under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) which are in relation to the foreign gold bars and biscuits valued at 13.56 crores which were seized by the DRI. The said value matches exactly with the value of movable properties recovered and seized by DRI. The material on record, therefore, does not reveal that there are any allegations in respect of any other scheduled offence(s) against any of the appellants herein. Insofar as the offences under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 are concerned, the property involved in the said offence is already under seizure by the DRI and attachment by the ED. Further, the confiscation thereof has also been proposed in the Prosecution Complaint under the PMLA, 2002 which remains pending.
As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], the respondent Directorate could not have assumed that any other scheduled offence(s) were committed by the appellants and proceeds were derived therefrom and attached property over above the seized gold, even if the same were found to out of unexplained sources. Unexplained investment in properties may no doubt be actionable under the Income-tax Act or other laws, but no action under PMLA, 2002 could have been initiated against the same based on assumption that because they were found to in excess of the known sources of income, the same were necessarily derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Conclusion - The attachment under PMLA can extend to properties not directly linked to the scheduled offence and properties of non-accused persons if connected to proceeds of crime. However, attachment cannot exceed the value of the alleged proceeds without evidence of additional criminal activity.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1104
Money Laundering - Challenge to detention/arrest of the petitioner - question to validity of the arrest said to be not in consonance with the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 since the grounds of arrest has not been supplied at the time of arrest of the petitioner in writing, rather, the grounds of arrest were for the first time supplied on 10.11.2024 along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent - HELD THAT:- In the first FIR, six charge sheets have been filed. More than 2000 accused have been named in the charge sheets. 550 witnesses have been named. In the case of the second FIR, there are 14 accused named in the chargesheet. In connection with this FIR, 24 witnesses have been cited. In the third FIR, 24 accused have been named in the charge sheet and 50 prosecution witnesses have been cited. The offences alleged in the aforementioned crimes are mainly under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 has been invoked.
These offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the PMLA. Therefore, relying on the final reports filed in aforementioned scheduled offences, for an offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (for short “ECIR”) bearing ECIR No. MDSZO/21/2021 on 29th July 2021.
Consequently, the appellant was arrested on 14th June 2023 in connection with the said ECIR and was remanded to judicial custody. A complaint was filed for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, which is punishable under Section 4, on 12th August 2023. The appellant is the only accused named in the complaint. Cognizance has been taken based on the complaint by the Special Court under the PMLA. The scheduled offences cases have been transferred to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu (Special MPMLA Court), Chennai.
The Hon’ble Apex Court while taking note of the settled principle that the stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time has allowed the appeal and direction has been passed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of the case.
The provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code deals with both types of remand i.e. “judicial remand” and “police remand”. The police have been given a right to apply before the Magistrate concerned for giving the accused in police custody and on being satisfied of adequate grounds the Magistrate may grant police remand of the accused for a specific period not beyond first fifteen days and later on, he can authorise only judicial detention of the accused till 90 to 60 days, as the case may be. Sections 209 and 309 of the Code deal with judicial custody during inquiry and trial - So far as authorisation of police custody of accused under Section 167 (2) is concerned it is legislative mandate that in no way the detention of the accused in police custody can be authorised for any time after expiry of the period of first fifteen days' remand. The Magistrate may allow detention other than custody in police till 90/60 days, as the case may be.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, special investigation cell-I Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni [1992 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the Magistrate is competent to authorise detention of any accused in police custody for a specific period on adequate grounds only for the first fifteen days and that detention in police custody or judicial custody or vice versa can be authorised only within first fifteen days. After fifteen days' detention the accused cannot be sent to police custody at all except in other cases in which remand of first fifteen days has not yet started.
The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner.
Admittedly, the writ petitioner has challenged order dated 09.06.2023 but has not questioned the illegality and propriety of order dated 08.06.2023 meaning thereby the writ petitioner is having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand dated 08.06.2023 otherwise said order would have been challenged by the writ petitioner. It means, the writ petitioner has accepted the remand order and has not challenged the order of remand rather he has chosen to prefer application under Sections 439 and 440 Cr.P.C before the Court of Sessions on merit by denying the allegation as referred in the ECIR by filing Misc. Cri. Application No. 1915 of 2023 for grant of bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2023 by learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi.
The moment the petitioner has shown no grievance with respect to any of the issues even the issue of arrest by raising the ground that he is not knowing as to on what ground he has been arrested rather he in each and every page has endorsed by putting his signature and gave note that he read over the content of the ground of arrest and did not shown any dissatisfaction.
This Court is not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand order dated 08.06.2023. Had the remand order dated 08.06.2023 have any infirmities, the writ petitioner would have made objection to that effect showing his dissatisfaction in the application which was filed before the Court having the jurisdiction for the purpose of remand of the present petitioner but admittedly that has not been done.
This Court in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as has been discussed herein above, is of the view that in view of confinement of prayer, the writ petition is required to be considered only with respect to the propriety/impropriety of order dated 09.06.2023 and in view of discussions made, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for showing interference in order dated 09.06.2023.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner could not challenge the arrest order after confining the writ petition to the remand order, as recorded in the judicial order dated 04.10.2024. ii) The remand order dated 09.06.2023 was valid, as the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest, and the procedural requirements for remand were met. iii) The petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference with the remand order dated 09.06.2023.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1067
Seeking grant of interim bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, due to the alleged medical conditions of his family members and the inability of his wife - it was held by High Court that 'there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on interim bail.'
HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the High Court is requested to decide the pending bail application on its own merit, without being influenced by the impugned order.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1036
Money Laundering - seeking grant of interim bail due to the alleged medical conditions of his family members and the inability of his wife to care for them adequately - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that the applicant was arrested by the police on 29.05.2024, when he had returned to India on 25.04.2024. He was abroad for many years prior to that. It is stated that the age of the father of the applicant is 80 years and the age of the mother is 70 years. They both are old patients. The wife of the applicant is looking after them. She has soft tissue issue. She is walking around.
Conclusion - Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on interim bail. Accordingly, the interim bail application deserves to be rejected.
The interim bail application is rejected.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1035
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Challenge to provisional attachment order - prayer for appropriate writ/direction for redrafting of the definition of ''value'' as provided under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- As per Section 2(u) of the PMLA Act defines the 'Proceeds of Crime', if any property is derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property comes under the proceeds of crime.
Therefore, the definition of 'value' as defined under Section 2(1)(zb) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the definition of 'property' and 'proceeds of crime' in order to achieve the aims and objectives of the PMLA Act. If all three definitions are read conjointly, there would be no need to redraft the definition of 'value', as prayed by the petitioner by way of this petition. A definition is not to be read in isolation.
Conclusion - The definition of 'value' as defined under Section 2(1)(zb) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the definition of 'property' and 'proceeds of crime' in order to achieve the aims and objectives of the PMLA Act.
The petition challenging the provisional attachment order and the constitutional validity of the definition of "value" under Section 2(1)(zb) was dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 905
Money Laundering - allotment of sites - proceeds of crime - challenge to registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against the petitioner arising out of predicate offence and consequent act of issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA - Whether the petitioner should be permitted to be investigated into on the impugned ECIR? - HELD THAT:- Section 3 has certain ingredients to be present. It should be concealment, possession, acquisition and usage of property which is allegedly proceeds of crime. What is proceeds of crime in the case at hand is sites granted in lieu of compensation. The compensation is granted under respective enactments. Whether the petitioner or other accused are guilty of those offences is being investigated into by the Lokayukta Police pursuant to registration of a crime in Crime No. 11 of 2024. The facts as on the date of registration of ECIR is that the petitioner is not in possession, enjoyment and usage of sites that were allotted to her, as they have been surrendered and cancellation of allotment has happened. Therefore, there is no laundering in the case at hand.
In the case at hand, the alleged proceeds of crime are referable to allotment of sites. The coordinate bench in the case of NATESHA [2025 (2) TMI 216 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] holds in two of its paragraphs that allotment of sites cannot become proceeds of crime.
In the light of the findings rendered by the coordinate Bench, as also different High Courts interpreting what would be proceeds of crime and whom would be guilty of proceeds of crime, the case at hand neither projects the petitioner being in possession, enjoyment and usage of proceeds of crime.
The Enforcement Directorate has filed detailed objections appending to it proceedings of search, seizure and attachment of property. While so doing, it has relied on those very judgments which have all been considered by the coordinate Bench as quoted. A communication from the Enforcement Directorate to the Additional Director General of Police, Lokayukta dated 30-11-2024 is produced as Annexure-R1. The allegations against the petitioner, and all other accused are verbatim similar to what is alleged in the complaint registered before the concerned Court which has become a crime in Crime No. 11 of 2024.
As submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Enforcement Directorate has found a larger picture of corruption and laundering in MUDA to which the present petitioner is no way responsible. The information gathered qua others could be taken forward by the Enforcement Directorate in a manner known to law. But, those cannot be attached to Crime No. 11 of 2024. Even according to the investigation, search, seizure, and recording of statements, nothing has emerged against the petitioner, except the repetition of what was an allegation at the outset which formed the fulcrum of Crime No. 11 of 2024. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, in view of the preceding analysis as also, the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be prosecuted for offences under the provisions of Money Laundering Act through the impugned ECIR. However, the findings rendered herein are for the purpose of consideration of the case qua the impugned ECIR. This would not become applicable to proceedings in Crime No. 11 of 2024.
Conclusion - i) For an offence under the PMLA, there must be possession, concealment, or usage of proceeds of crime, and mere possession without projection as untainted property does not suffice. ii) The ECIR and all consequential actions, including the summons issued against the petitioner quashed, due to the lack of evidence supporting the possession or laundering of proceeds of crime.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 850
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - primary allegation was that the appellant was involved in financial transactions related to proceeds of crime, generated through fraudulent activities causing significant financial losses to the State of Gujarat - HELD THAT:- A significant ground raised by the appellant pertains to the nature of the alleged offence under the PMLA. The appellant has contended that the alleged acts do not constitute an offence under the PMLA as the same was not in force during the relevant period, or the predicate offences as alleged were not included in the schedule to the PMLA at the relevant time and, therefore, cannot be subject to proceedings under the PMLA. It has also been argued that these instances do not constitute continuing offences. This contention, however, is untenable. It is well established that offences under the PMLA are of a continuing nature, and the act of money laundering does not conclude with a single instance but extends so long as the proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. The legislative intent behind the PMLA is to combat the menace of money laundering, which by its very nature involves transactions spanning over time.
The concept of a continuing offence under PMLA has been well-settled by judicial precedents. An offence is deemed continuing when the illicit act or its consequences persist over time, thereby extending the liability of the offender. Section 3 of the PMLA defines the offence of money laundering to include direct or indirect attempts to indulge in, knowingly assist, or knowingly be a party to, or actually be involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such involvement, if prolonged, constitutes a continuing offence.
The law recognizes that money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy - The material on record indicates the continued and repeated misuse of power and position by the appellant, resulting in the generation and utilization of proceeds of crime over an extended period. The respondent has successfully demonstrated prima facie that the appellant remained involved in financial transactions linked to proceeds of crime beyond the initial point of commission. The utilization of such proceeds, the alleged layering and integration, and the efforts to project such funds as untainted all constitute elements of a continuing offence under the PMLA. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the appellant are well within the legal framework and cannot be assailed on this ground.
Furthermore, it is settled law that the determination of the amount involved in a money laundering offence is not to be viewed in isolation but in the context of the overall financial trail and associated transactions - The appellant has failed to substantiate his claim with any material that contradicts the respondent’s submissions in this regard. Therefore, this ground also does not aid the appellant in any manner.
The illegal diversion and layering of funds have a cascading effect, leading to revenue losses for the state and depriving legitimate sectors of investment and financial resources. It is settled law that in cases involving serious economic offences, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage must be exercised with caution, and proceedings should not be quashed in the absence of compelling legal grounds. The respondent has rightly argued that in cases involving allegations of such magnitude, a trial is imperative to establish the full extent of wrongdoing and to ensure accountability - Given the severe and grave nature of the allegations against the appellant, it is imperative that he must undergo thorough judicial scrutiny during trial. A proper trial is necessary to unearth the full extent of the offence, to evaluate the evidence produced by the appellant, to analyze the complete chain of final transactions, and find out the veracity of the severe allegations and the amount of proceeds of crime. The legal framework under the PMLA serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure that individuals involved in laundering proceeds of crime are brought to justice and that economic offences do not go unpunished.
Conclusion - It is evident that the appellant has failed to establish any legally sustainable ground warranting interference by this Court at a pre-trial stage. The submissions made in support of the appeal are neither legally untenable nor in the best interest of justice. The offence alleged against the appellant is clearly a continuing offence under the PMLA, and the quantum of proceeds of crime involved far exceeds the statutory threshold and requires proper investigation and judicial scrutiny. The findings of the Courts below are wellreasoned and do not call for interference.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 685
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's involvement in money laundering activities - applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] has held that 'The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial.'
In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, [2007 (4) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "at the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial."
It is not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions that the amount utilized by him not comes from Mahadev online book. Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there is no mens rea of the applicant for the said offence under the PMLA-2002.
Considering the nature of allegation against the present applicant and also the material collected during the investigation and further the gravity of the offence, the benefit of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be extended to him for releasing him on bail at this stage, as the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegation against the applicant is different than the facts and circumstances of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant.
Conclusion - Considering the role of the applicant in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of crime in the Mahadev Book App, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED/respondent to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant in the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion, therefore, further considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 this Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the applicant is involved in the offence and he is likely to commit any other offence while on bail, it is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 511
Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - maintainability of miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Enforcement Directorate is on the verge of finalizing one deal with respect to one property at around Rs. 40,00,00,000/-. Let this deal be now finalized. It is further informed that so far as the second property is concerned, the first round of auction has failed. If that be so then, the Enforcement Directorate should at the earliest go for a fresh round of auction and see to it that the second property is also sold.
It is reiterated if the amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/- is not deposited within a period of three months from today, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled without any further orders from this Court and it will be open for the Enforcement Directorate to take back the accused-lady in custody. If the accused goes back to jail then perhaps we need not have to further monitor this particular litigation. We shall close the matter in the event if arrest is effected. It is now for the Enforcement Directorate to go ahead with the auctioning of all the attached properties so as to try to recover the maximum amount possible.
Conclusion - The miscellaneous application could be considered in light of the petitioner's proposal, despite questions of maintainability.
Post this matter on 14th July, 2025.
-
2025 (3) TMI 510
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime of more than 2000 crores - scheduled offences or not - serious crime or not - applicability of twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there are nearly 70 accused persons while charge sheet has only been filed against 11 persons. There are 457 witnesses in the scheduled offence and the trial is not likely to conclude. However, the ED has submitted that at least 3 to 4 charge sheets are yet to be filed in the scheduled offence. It appears that the applicant was involved in the criminal acts of the syndicate and is in possession of the proceeds of crime and that he received commission from the liquor suppliers. The applicant was the key player in the syndicate - Prima facie, the involvement of the applicant in the present case has been established as massive corruption had taken place in the Excise Department by way of extorting amount of Rs. 2000 crores approximately and causing huge loss to the State Exchequer which otherwise would have yielded revenue for Central and State government.
An analysis of section 19 of the PMLA unveils a delicate interplay between legal principles, enforcement challenges, and evolving due process standards. The judiciary’s commitment to balancing prompt law enforcement with the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to receive timely notification of arrest grounds, not only adds value but also amplifies the ongoing conversation about the equitable consideration of security and justice in the context of any crime, whether financial or otherwise - the ED has shown the reason to believe that the applicant is guilty of the proceeds of crime. On the basis of statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA however, retraction statement is made by the co- accused persons namely Arun Pati Tripathi, Nitesh Purohit and Arvind Singh.
The Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi [2023 (5) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the power to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be exercised on the “whims and fancies” of Directorate of Enforcement (ED) officers. The court wondered if the ED even had a consistent, uniform and ”one- rule-for-all” policy on when they should arrest people. It said the ED’s power to arrest must be based on objective and fair consideration of material against the accused.
Conclusion - Prima facie it appears that in the investigation conducted during the predicate office, the applicant had a key role in the liquor syndicate and was involved in money laundering and proceeds of crime along with other co-accused therefore, the entitlement of the applicant to get bail under PMLA, 2002, is not acceptable and considering the entirety of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.
The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002 is hereby rejected.
-
2025 (3) TMI 387
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offence - Provisional Attachment Order - illegal foreign remittances to Hong Kong through banking channels by submitting fake import documents to bank authorities - HELD THAT:- It is, firstly, noted that the claim of the appellant that the property was acquired out of the appellant's own legitimate income remains a bland assertion without any substantiating evidence. It is settled law that under section 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002, the burden of proof is upon the appellant to indicate the sources of income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he had acquired the property attached u/s 5(1). The contention of the respondents is that the appellant had no independent source of income and he was associated with his brothers, namely, Sh. Manish Jain and Sh. Rakesh Jain during the relevant period. Moreover, the presumptions u/s 23 and 24 are also against the appellant and it was for him to rebut the presumptions by presenting appropriate evidence before the Ld. AA which he failed to do.
It is by now well-settled that the issue of retrospectivity or otherwise in so far as offence of money laundering is concerned has to be examined with reference to the act which constitutes 'money laundering' under Act, regardless of the time of occurrence of the scheduled offence. Further, the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence. A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all. A continuing offence occurs and reoccurs, and each time, an offence is committed.
The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Prakash Industries Limited [2022 (7) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT] may also be referred to in this context, wherein, it was held that it is well settled relating to retroactive application of penal previous that merely because requisite or facet for initiation of action pertains to a period prior to the enforcement of the statute, that would not be sufficient to characterize statute as being retrospective. It must be borne in mind that the Act with which we are concerned penalizes acts of money laundering. It does not create a separate punishment for a crime prescribed under the Penal Code. The Act does not penalize the predicate offence. That offence merely constitutes the substratum on which charge of money laundering is being raised.
There are no sufficient grounds to hold that the actions taken under sections 5 and 8 were not valid on account of non-communication of the reasons by the relevant authorities acting under the said provision. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant is rejected.
Conclusion - The attached properties were rightfully considered proceeds of crime or their equivalent value. The attachment orders upheld.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 273
Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - appellants acted in collusion with the main accused and became beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the co-accused have been granted bail. Apart from that, we have taken note of the value of the proceeds of crime that the appellants are alleged to have been involved with. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants which indicates the specific roles played by the coaccused who have been granted bail. Suffice it is to state that the co-accused who have been granted bail are involved with higher amounts of proceeds of crime in comparison to the appellants.
Conclusion - On the grounds of parity, bail is allowed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 272
Money Laundering - involvement in a crime of defalcation of huge sum in the matter of managing the award of tenders to PHED - twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- In the case of Manish Sisodia [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT] the Court has not exercised the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court has held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards, as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has held that a prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial. Like in the case of Manish Sisodia [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT] in the present case also thousands of documents are required to be considered at the stage of trial, so also around 50 witnesses are required to be examined. The main evidence in the present case is documentary in nature, which is already seized by the prosecution agency. As such, there is no possibility of the same being tampered with.
It is further to be noted that the Minister, for whose benefit the alleged transactions have taken place, has also not been implecated as an accused in the present case. The petitioner has already been released on bail in the predicate offences.
SLP disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 271
Money Laundering - predicate offence - direction to remove the attachment made by the 2nd respondent - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order passed by the appellate Tribunal reveals that when predicate offence does not survive on account of acquittal, then it cannot be presumed that the said attached properties were purchased out of proceeds of crime by way of money laundering. Further, the appellate Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to release the attached properties of the appellants / affected persons, as V. Kasimayan and the other accused persons are already acquitted in predicate offence under NDPS Act vide judgment of acquittal dated 01.08.2017 in Complaint Case No.52 of 2016.
Since already the appellate Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to release the attached properties in pursuant to the Complaint Case No.52 of 2016, the attachment made by the 2nd respondent in respect of the subject properties is hereby raised in pursuant to the order passed by the appellate Tribunal dated 14.09.2023. The registering authority is directed to record the same in the book of records in respect of the subject properties forthwith.
Conclusion - i) When an accused is acquitted in a criminal case, the attached properties cannot be presumed to be proceeds of crime through money laundering. ii) The attachment made by the 2nd respondent on the subject properties was raised in accordance with the appellate Tribunal's order, and the registering authority was directed to record the same.
Petition allowed.
........
|
9911796707
