|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 2025 Records
-
2024 (11) TMI 995
Money Laundering - sale proceeds of lottery tickets - challenge to closure report - offences punishable under Sections 294N, Section 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- A legislation when brought into force with a legislative intent does not stay in the same shape, as it was intended to be. Evolution of the legislation is inevitable in a growing country. The operation and implementation of the law decides that the legislation is taken forward in its intended spirit and force. Once the legislation is applied and tested, the consequences of such application determine the character and fate of the legislation.
The objects of the PMLA as intended is crystal clear from the day of its inception. Economic interest of our great nation is the soul object. The consequent implementation of the law should be in tandem with the legislative intent. Any misuse or abuse of the law will fracture the bones of PMLA, thereby rendering it wholly ineffective. Legislation of such nature must be handled with caution and must not injure any vital organs of Part III of the Constitution of India.
To remind that facts of the present case at this juncture, the seizure of huge amount of cash of Rs. 7.20/- crores was on 12.03.2012. The sale agreement is said to have been entered into on 02.03.2012. The stamp paper has been released by the State Government only on 09.03.2012 and it was sold by the stamp vendor to one Smt.Vimala on 13.02.2012. It is a clear case of cheating by amassing money by sale of illegally printed lottery tickets attracting Section 420 of IPC, creation of a false document in the form of a sale agreement attracting the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and hence prima facie materials are available for both the predicate offence and the offence under PMLA. But the PMLA proceedings are sought to be scuttled by closing the proceedings in the predicate offence.
In the present case, the State Investigating Agency registered the predicate offence, conducted investigation and against the dismissal of quash petition filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the criminal case was restored by the order of the Apex Court. When the prima facie case regarding a predicate offence has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by restoring the criminal case in the predicate offence, filing closure report thereafter by the very same State Agency is undoubtedly suspicious and doubtful.
The State Agency has made an attempt to bury the predicate offence against the accused persons in a suspicious manner and on extraneous considerations, which are visible through their actions including the closure report filed by the State police - The State Investigating Agency and the Enforcement Directorate are directed to proceed with the case in tandem, so as to ensure that the criminal case instituted is proceeded in accordance with law. However, the trial must go on uninfluenced by the observations, if any made relating to facts in the present case.
The facts established and the legal position considered made us to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the Closure Report filed by the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2022 accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur by order dated 17.11.2022 made in Crime No.304 of 2012 stands set aside - Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 927
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - financial irregularities - involvement in paper sale transaction without conducting any actual business transactions which resulted in false inflation of financials - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- Apart from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the data manifesting relationship of stock, turn over and borrowings by SBFL reflects that SBFL started taking loans from different banks with the help of inflated turn over and fictitious closing stocks.
The fact that the stock worth Rs.3035.52 crores was declared as obsolete/damaged by pest without suitably accounting for the same, prima facie, reflects mala fide intention. There appears to be sufficient material on record, which reflects that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the process and also appears to be the beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime.
In the facts and circumstances, there do not appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence as provided under Section 45 of PMLA. Considering the evidence on record, serious nature of economic offence whereby the public funds to the tune of Rs.3035.52 crores have been siphoned off, and the fact that application preferred on behalf of co-accused Tarun Kumar stands rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
Application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 833
Money Laundering - attachment of property which were acquired prior to the scheduled offence - connection with the proceeds of crime or not - jurisdiction of impugned PAO on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 5 (1) i.e. “reason to believe” - HELD THAT:- The concept of the property of equivalent value was introduced with respect to the aforementioned properties. The amendment enabled the authorities to go after any other property of a person of equivalent value. In 2019, the scope of the phrase ‘proceeds of crime’ was further expanded so as to include other properties which were not directly or indirectly the proceeds of crime, but were held abroad, to be liable to attachment. In 2019, the explanation has been added so as to give a wider scope to the authorities. From the objects and reasons of the ‘2002 Act’, it becomes evident that the money laundering posed a serious threat not only to the financial system of the countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty. The ‘2002 Act’ was enacted to prevent money laundering and connected activities. The act of money laundering is a multi-layered, complex and complicated diversion of the property, which is required to be prevented. Consequently, the definition of proceeds of crime has undergone transformative changes from time to time so as to include all the complex acts involved in the offence of money laundering.
It is not disputed that the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] was examining the scope of the ‘2002 Act’ including definition of phrase ‘proceeds of crime’. The submission put forth by the learned counsel that the phrase ‘or the value of any such property’ is superfluous was rejected by the Court and it was held that the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ is wide enough to not only include to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity related to a schedule offence but also any other property of equivalent value.
While interpreting a statutory provision, it is the bounden buty of the Courts to interpret it in manner so that each word used by the statute conveys a meaning it was assigned by the Legislature. The words used in statute are of utmost significance. The Court cannot widen or restrict the provisions on its own whims and fancies. When a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, the general rule of interpretation of statute is to read the provision as a whole and the Court must adhere strictly to the ordinary, plain meaning of the words used. The words in a statute are used precisely, not loosely, and efforts must be made to interpret them in a literal manner to give effect to the objective of the Act. This approach of interpretation is based on the idea that the legislature’s intent is best reflected in the exact words of the statute.
Alleged failure to record reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- In the considered opinion of the Court, the ‘PAO’ has fulfilled the mandatory requirement of recording the ‘reasons to believe’. This is only a provisional attachment order, which is subject to adjudication and confirmation within a period of 180 days by the competent authority in which opportunity has been provided to the petitioner. The reliance placed on para 287 of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case is not appropriate because it has been observed that the authorized officer can order provisional attachment only upon recording satisfaction regarding two requirements. Specifically, the officer has to form his opinion and provide written reasons for such belief, which must be based on material in his possession rather than on mere assumptions. In this case, the electronic record has been seized and there was sufficient material apart from fake e-Rawana bills to substantiate this satisfaction.
Evaluation of fulfillment of first proviso to section 5(1) in light of the challenge - HELD THAT:- It is evident that forwarding of a report to a Magistrate under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is not sine qua non for ordering provisional attachment. Moreover, such report is required to be filed against a person who is in possession of ‘proceeds of crime’. The petitioner in CWP-22688-2024, is an accused in FIR No.21, dated 19.01.2024, registered under Section 120B, 420 IPC and Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. In the subsequent FIR that has been registered pursuant to the search carried out by the Enforcement Directorate substantial material has been found to prima facie establish not only the offence of money laundering but also large scale illegal mining of boulders, gravel, sand on the basis of fake, invalid e-Rawana invoices. There is material on record to show that the mined material has been transferred without e-Rawana invoices. There is a huge discrepancy in the minerals mined and sold. This FIR has been filed on the complaint filed by a person authorized to investigate the offences mentioned in the schedule. Hence, requirement of first proviso to Section 5 (1) stands fulfilled.
Significance of the expression 'immediately' and its interpretation - HELD THAT:- It is evident that in Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan Vs. Ranbir Singh, [1995 (2) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT], the word ‘immediately’ and ‘forthwith’ were treated as synonyms. Moreover, if failure to follow the statutory provision provides no express consequences, the procedural requirement shall be considered to be ‘directory’.
Disputed questins of fact - HELD THAT:- Vehicles carrying mined material have not been provided with the GPS system and mining has been carried out beyond the permissible depth and National Green Tribunal has imposed penalty of Rs. 2.5 crore, Rs. 4.2 crore and Rs. 12 crore on M/s Delhi Royalty Company, M/s Development Strategies India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mubarikpur Royalty Company, respectively. Moreover, it is stated that against the order dated 18.11.2022, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. In this situation, it would not be appropriate to quash the ‘PAO’ particularly when an appropriate order after considering all aspects is yet to be passed by the adjudicating authority as provided under Section 8 of ‘2002 Act’.
Availability of an efficacious alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The question of whether the writ petition can be entertained is one that the Court must consider based on the facts of each case. Availability of alternate statutory remedy is one of the grounds that dissuade the Constitutional Court to interfere. The petitioner has filed the writ petition based upon the interpretation given by a Division Bench in Seema Garg’s Case [2020 (3) TMI 460 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] hence, this Court has considered it appropriate to entertain the writ petition and to adjudicate.
The writ petitions lack merit and hence dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 832
Penalty u/s 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - It was alleged that the appellant bank failed to make a report of cash transactions of high value or there was delay in making report, the heavy penalty of Rs. 25,70,000/- has been imposed - violation of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act of 2002 read with Rule 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 7(2) and 7(4) of the Rules of 2005 - HELD THAT:- Section 12(1)(b) requires reporting entity to furnish information of transactions referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 12 of PMLA to the Director FIU India within such time as may be prescribed. From plain reading and careful consideration of the language employed in section 12(1)(b), it becomes clear that the allegation made against the appellant was of delay in furnishing information of transactions referred to in Section 12(1)(a) of PMLA within such time as may be prescribed and it was even for non-reporting.
Rule 8 prescribes the time by which information in respect of transactions is to be furnished. Thus the appellant was enjoined to furnish the information in respect of transactions every 15th day of succeeding month to the respondent. Section 12(1)(b) read with rule 3,7 and 8 enjoined the appellant to furnish the information in respect of transactions otherwise it was to attract penalty. The penalty is for each failure and in our considered opinion, the phrase ‘each failure’ used in Section 13 refers to failure to furnish information or delay in furnishing the information in respect of each transaction which would be taken as “each failure” for imposition of penalty.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that despite contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules, the penalty should not have been imposed on the appellant rather it should have been a warning. The argument aforesaid could not be accepted because if the contraventions are ignored and only warning given in a non-deserving case, then would be taken as a course and in that case there would be no sanctity of the provisions of the Act and nobody would make compliances. The imposition of the penalty is to ensure firm compliances of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
If the facts of this case are taken into consideration, the appellants have admitted their error though said to be inadvertent. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shriram Mutual Fund [2006 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT], the penalty for the failure of the appellant to make report of the CTRs or delay was rightly imposed. It is, however, urged that the minimum penalty is of Rs. 10,000/- as against 16 CTRs, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed though for other 167 defaults, the minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed. We do not find any substance in the argument for the reason that while adjudicating the appeal, this Tribunal has limited jurisdiction in causing interference on the imposition of penalty unless it is shown to be disproportionate. The case in hand is not of that nature because the appellant bank remained reckoned defaulter in making report of cash transaction for quite long and the report was made only when it was informed by the RBI to FIU. It was, however, urged that the appellant bank made the report but it was not accepted on computer.
There was continuous contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was thus rightly taken for imposition of appropriate punishment which on the facts cannot be said to be disproportionate.
There are no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 831
Seeking lapse of the order of attachment in reference to Section 5(1) and (3) of the Act of 2002 - Legality of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in relation to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has given reference of relevant dates which started with issuance of Provisional Attachment Order on 18.06.2021 followed by Show Cause Notice by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.08.2021. The reply to it was filed on 16.09.2021. The pleadings were then completed on 23.09.2021 and thereupon the matter was kept for final hearing.
It is true that the Adjudicating Authority needs to pass an order to terminate the proceedings within 180 days otherwise the attachment would lapse but there was extra-ordinary situation during the period Covid-19 and, therefore, the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [2022 (2) TMI 1268 - SUPREME COURT] has provided safeguard to the litigants and others for termination of proceedings and illustratively reference of few provisions like Arbitration Act was given. It was with clarity that it would apply to other statutes also - the argument of the appellant to lapse the proceedings despite the period for termination of proceedings which was excluded from 15.03.2020 till 20.08.2022, cannot be accepted. If the aforesaid period is excluded, left out period in this case is hardly of 26 days i.e. less than 180 days.
Thus, even the subsequent legal issue raised by the appellant is not worth acceptance and is rejected summarily. Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 794
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Consideration of proceeds of crime regarding the refund amount from unsuccessful IPO applications - malpractices and manipulations indulged by certain individuals/entities for different Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) - forged documents - HELD THAT:- The SEBI has passed the order within the four corner of the provisions applicable therein. The reference of the order passed by the SEBI rather goes against the appellant and proves the allegation substantially. It is, however, only to the extent of determination of unlawful gains pursuant to the provision of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992(SEBI Act, 1992). The SEBI has determined the amount of unlawful gain by taking the difference of the amount out of sale of shares. Their area of determination was only to find out illegal gain out of the allotment. The provisions of the Act of 2002 are quite different and distinct to the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992. The FIR followed by ECIR was recorded finding commissioning of scheduled offence and the ‘proceeds of crime’ in the hands of the appellant. It is taking into consideration the amount involved and used for illegal purpose to cheat the public and, therefore, the entire amount therein was considered to be the ‘proceeds of crime’. The satisfaction of the amount determined by the SEBI would not absolve the appellant from commission of the scheduled offence, otherwise the appellant would have challenged the FIR or ECIR but no such challenge has been made. Thus, there are no substance even in the second argument.
Discrepancies and contradictions in the orders qua the amount - HELD THAT:- There are no discrepancy or contradiction in the amount and otherwise the final amount has been referred and disclosed in the impugned order thus alleged issue of discrepancy no more remains. Thus there are no substance even in the third argument.
Alleged discrimination in the action of the respondent - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the appellant was called upon to refer to the documents to prove allegation of discrimination in the treatment between the similarly placed. A reference of the Income Tax Return was given but then the counsel fairly admitted that it cannot substantiate the argument of discrimination. It could have been by producing an order of provisional attachment against others which has not been produced. Thus, even the last argument alleging discrimination of treatment is not made out.
There are no substance in any of the argument raised by the appellant - The appeals would accordingly fail and are dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 793
Attachment of immovable properties under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) due to non-compliance with Section 8(1) requirements - reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, “reasons to believe” were not conveyed to the appellant along with the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority despite judgment of the various High Courts and even by this Tribunal holding that whenever a notice is caused by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, “reasons to believe” recorded in writing have to be given to the defendants. However, the appellant was not given copy of the “reasons to believe” while issuing notice. Thus, on the aforesaid ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
This Tribunal while holding that the “reasons to believe” recorded in writing may not be required to be served under Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 but notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 should be with “reasons to believe” of the Adjudicating Authority. It is for the reason that after the attachment, if it is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, it may ultimately affect the party and that cannot be without an opportunity to know the “reasons to believe” of the Adjudicating Authority - the reason to cause interference in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to take de novo proceedings and that too from the stage of submitting notice to the appellant along with the “reasons to believe” so that appellant may file a proper reply.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 670
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - misuse of position to appoint and engage relatives and other known persons to various posts in the DWB, from which they derived pecuniary benefits - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 45 of the PMLA shows that the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and the Court should have reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The twin conditions though restricts the right of accused to be released on bail but do not impose absolute restraint and the discretion vests in the Court.
Section 45 of the PMLA while imposing additional conditions to be met for granting bail, does not create an absolute prohibition on the grant of bail. When there is no possibility of trial being concluded in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for a long time, depending on the nature of allegations, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21. What is a reasonable period for completion of trial would have to be seen in light of the minimum and maximum sentences provided for the offence, whether there are any stringent conditions which have been provided, etc. It would also have to be seen whether the delay in trial is attributable to the accused.
The issue of long incarceration and right of speedy trial also cropped up in Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the right to bail in cases of delay in trial, coupled with long period of incarceration would have to be read into the Section 439 CrPC as well as Section 45 of PMLA while interpreting the said provisions.
Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT], is another recent decision where it has been reiterated that the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 cannot be arbitrarily subjugated to the statutory bar in Section 45 of the Act and the constitutional mandate being the higher law, the right to speedy trial must be ensured and if the trial is being delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused, his incarceration should not be prolonged on that account.
The view taken in the Manish Sisodia and Prem Prakash cases was reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (9) TMI 321 - SC ORDER], where it was held that liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution does not get abrogated.
In a situation such as the present case, where there are multiple accused persons, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, large number of witnesses to be examined, the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future and the delay is not attributable to the accused, keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA a tool for incarceration or as a shackle is not permissible - The accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, etc.
As held in the catena of judgements, Constitutional Courts have the power to grant bails on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution and Section 45 does not act as an hindrance to the same. The sacrosanct right to liberty and fair trial is to be protected even in cases of stringent provisions present in special legislations.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the fact that the main accused is out on bail, the period of custody undergone, the likelihood of supplementary challan being filed qua the main accused and that the trial has been stuck at the stage of supply of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C., keeping in mind the import of the catena of decisions of Supreme Court discussed hereinabove, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail subject to him furnishing respective personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M./link J.M. and subject to the fulfilment of further conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 593
Seeking grant of bail - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a lady having medical ailment, it is required to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant.
The impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 296
Requirement of prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for prosecuting the respondents, who are public servants, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT:- The allegation against the second respondent is of allocating an additional 10 lakh litres of water to India Cement Ltd. Taking the averments made in the complaint against him as it is, the act alleged against him has been committed by him while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. The allegation against the first respondent is of the allotment of land measuring 250 acres to M/s. Indu Tech Zone Private Ltd. Taking the averments made in the complaint as correct, the act alleged against him has been done by him purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. In the case of both respondents, the acts alleged against them are related to the discharge of the duties entrusted to them.
It is not even the allegation in the complaints that the two respondents were not empowered to do the acts they have done. There is a connection between their duties and the acts complained of. The second condition for the applicability of Section 197(1) also stands satisfied, and therefore, in this case, Section 197(1) of CrPC applies to the respondents, assuming that Section 197(1) of CrPC applies to the proceedings under the PMLA.
Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1) - the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA.
Section 71 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the PMLA notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 65 is a prior section which specifically makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to PMLA, subject to the condition that only those provisions of the CrPC will apply which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. Therefore, when a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies to the PMLA.
In this case, the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, has been taken against the respondents accused without obtaining previous sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct - The order of cognizance against the other accused will remain unaffected - Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 295
The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, which was then dismissed. The Special Court was directed to proceed with the trial promptly, and the petitioner could file a fresh bail application if needed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 294
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - smuggling of Red Sanders - applicability of first provisio or second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 479 of the BNSS? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the maximum sentence for the scheduled offence under Sections 132, 135(1)(a)(ii) and 135(1)(b)(ii) read with Section 140 of the Customs Act, 1862 is three years.
On facts, this is not a case where this Court should exercise powers under second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 479 of the BNSS and deny the benefit of the first proviso.
The appellant is ordered to enlarged on bail in terms of the first proviso of sub- Section 1 of Section 479 of the BNSS. For that purpose, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of one week from today - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 293
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - partners of M/s Vikas Construction had encroached on public property by falsification of records - it was held by High Court that 'This Court is unable to persuade itself to form a, prima facie, satisfaction in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty or that he may not commit an offence on bail. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is rejected.'
HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case along with the period of incarceration, the impugned order is set aside and bail is granted to the appellant, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall also, additionally, impose the conditions that the appellant shall fully cooperate with the trial, and shall not make any attempt or endeavour to influence the witnesses and also that he will not leave the country without the leave of the trial court.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 292
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions of the petitioner, Piyali Dutta Roy, stating that she can challenge the confirmed provisional attachment order through an appeal as per the law. Pending applications were disposed of.
-
2024 (11) TMI 210
Condonation of delay of 488 days in filing the special leave petition - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - provisional attachment of property - gist of the objection raised by the ED is that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the High Court of Jharkhand - it was held by High Court that 'The respondent no.2 is directed to accept the amount of Rs.12 Lakhs tendered by the petitioner-company through bank draft in the name of Directorate of Enforcement payable at Ranchi which shall be deposited in the interest-bearing account till completion of the trial.'
HELD THAT:- The delay cannot be condoned - SLP dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2024 (11) TMI 131
Money Laundering - predicate offence - bail sought on medical grounds - applicability of Section 45(1) of PMLA - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA specifically contemplates that a person who “is sick or infirm” may be released on bail if the Special Court so directs.
The petitioner is 67 years old and has spent nearly a year and three months in custody. Based on the medical evaluation which has been provided by the Medical Team at Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, it is evident that the petitioner fulfills the threshold required for being enlarged on bail.
The petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court - SLP disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 130
Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - HELD THAT:- Let a team of doctors examine the petitioner and give an appropriate report as regards the medical condition of the petitioner.
List this matter on 14 October 2024.
-
2024 (11) TMI 60
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - offences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT:- While filing the charge-sheet on 8th June, 2023 in FIR No.129 of 2022, it was mentioned that an offence under Section 384 of the IPC appears to have been committed in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is recorded that therefore, a report be submitted to the concerned Police Station in the State of Chhattisgarh through proper channel. While filing the charge-sheet, Section 120-B of the IPC was dropped.
Thus, on the date of filing of the charge-sheet on 8th June, 2023, there was no scheduled offence. As late as on 17th January, 2024, another FIR was registered in Chhattisgarh in which allegation is made about the commission of offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. Thus, when the complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA Act was filed, the scheduled offence was not in existence. Even in the charge-sheet filed in the FIR which is stated to be a scheduled offence in the complaint, there was no allegation of commission of any scheduled offence. As late as on 19th July, 2024, now the charge-sheet has been filed in the State of Chhattisgah for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC.
Considering the long period of incarceration and considering the peculiar fact of these appeals, continuation of custody of the appellants will be violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 15
Money Laundering - denial of bail - hawala operator - assisting the other accused persons in transferring the proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the case against the appellant seems to be that he being a hawala operator, assisted the other accused persons in transferring the proceeds of crime. It is also noticed that prosecution intends to examine almost ninety-eight witnesses. The investigation so far as the appellant herein is concerned, is complete and complaint has also been lodged.
The appellant can be released on bail subject to certain terms and conditions as may be imposed by the court concerned - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 14
Seeking grant of Bail - Money Laundering - existence of proof of identification of proceeds of crime or not - absence of transcripts to alleged transfer of Rs. 30 crores - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that all other accused have been granted bail and the complaint has already been filed.
The impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is granted bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court - appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
