|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 2025 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1640
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - prima facie evidence against the applicant indicating involvement in money laundering activities under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA - twin conditions u/s 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] has observed that 'The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. 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.”
The requirement of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 is completely satisfied. In criminal activity of using the benami bank accounts and utilizing them for managing the proceeds of crime belonging to Mahadev Online Book is the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002. The material collected during the investigation and the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 clearly establish the link of the present applicant with the alleged offence.
From the material produced in the present case, it is not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions that the amount utilized by him in purchasing the assets 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. Although the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 is required to be tested at the time of trial, for the purpose of consideration of bail application the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 can be considered against the applicant.
It cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. 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.
Conclusion - There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant to justify denying bail. The court found that the applicant's arrest and remand were conducted in accordance with legal provisions and that the evidence presented by the ED supported the allegations of money laundering.
The present bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1636
Seeking grant of regular bail u/s 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - predicate offence - applicability and interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the predicate offence has been registered against the applicant by ACB/EOW, Raipur Chhattisgarh under 120-B, 420,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are schedule offences included in Paragraphs 1 & 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. The predicate offence FIR; documents including the statements recorded u/s. 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr. Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director, Prosecution Complaint filed by the IT and the date shared by the Income Tax Department were analyzed by the ED. From the statements of the witnesses who had reaffirmed their statements given in the earlier ECIR 11 it has come into fact that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh.
From the investigation by the ED it has been revealed that CSMCL was used by the syndicate to enforce a parallel excise department which comprises of senior bureaucrats of State, politicians and officials of Excise Department. The applicant was leading the CSMCL and was the MD of the organization. It has been further revealed that the applicant was assigned with the task of maximizing the bribe commission collected on liquor procured by M/s. CSMCL and for making necessary arrangement for sale of non duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops.
In the instant case, after investigation by the ED, it has come to notice that the placement of the applicant as the head of M/s. CSMCL and Special Secretary in State Excise Department being an influential person and close to senior bureaucrats, masterminds of the present liquor syndicate earned profits. The applicants direct involvement in the commission and execution of the entire scam has been investigated wherein extortion of commission from the sale of unaccounted liquor could be attributed - The applicant is alleged to have conspired with M/s. Prizm Holography by lowering the tender conditions and ensured supply of lacs of duplicate holograms which were required to make the1liquor look real liquor.
It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019 - it cannot be said that no prima facie ofence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. Since, the allegations against the petitioner were serious nature therefore there was material to infer his involvement in serious crimes.
Conclusion - Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the applicant herein, the manner in which he is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby was part of a syndicate and involved in the illegal earning by assisting in providing duplicate holograms, transferring funds to foreign lands, charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and considering the nature of charge and gravity of offence, the applicant is charged, which is extremely serious and looking to the special and stringent provision under Section 45(1) of the PMLA for grant of bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail.
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, is hereby rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1632
Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - period of incarceration suffered of nearly two years and one month - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the appellant, Prem Prakash, will be released on bail during the pendency of the trial arising out of Prosecution Complaint/ECIR Case No. 04/2022 in ECIR/RNZO/03/2022 dated 08.03.2022, titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. Pankaj Mishra & Ors.”, pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Court under PMLA at Ranchi, Jharkhand, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The terms and conditions for grant of bail will be fixed by the trial Court.
The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1619
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order of the properties - proceeds of crime - properties acquired prior to the commission of crime had no nexus with the crime - HELD THAT:- The argument has been made in reference to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Satish Motilal Bidri [2024 (6) TMI 1392 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and the judgment of Apex Court in Pavana Dibur [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that the properties acquired prior to commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”. The arguments which may otherwise make second part of the definition of “proceeds of crime” to be redundant cannot be accepted. It would be for the reason that if the definition is taken only in two parts leaving the middle part, then it would be difficult for the enforcement agencies to protect the property till completion of the crime to save the victim from crime committed by the accused. It would be for the reason that if the property acquired prior to commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”, then the accused would commit the crime and immediately proceeds would be siphoned off or vanished so that it may not remain available for attachment.
If the definition of “proceeds of crime” is given interpretation by dividing it into two parts or by taking only two limbs, then it would be easy for the accused to siphon off or vanish the proceeds immediately after the commission of scheduled offence and in that case none of his properties could be attached to secure the interest of the victim till conclusion of the trial. This would not only frustrate the object of the Act of 2002, but would advance the cause of the accused to promote the crime of money laundering.
It is reiterated that any other interpretation other than the one taken by Delhi High Court in the cases of Axis Bank [2019 (4) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Prakash Industries [2022 (7) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for the definition of “proceeds of crime” would defeat the object of the Act of 2002. It is more especially when the arguments raised by the appellant that the property acquired prior to the commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”. In that case, the task of the accused would become very easy to first commit the scheduled offence and after obtaining or deriving the property out of the criminal activities, immediately siphon off or vanish so that it may not remain available for attachment and otherwise the contingency aforesaid would satisfy only the first limb of definition of “proceeds of crime” leaving the second.
The argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted so as to make the middle part of the definition of “proceeds of crime” to be redundant.
The only argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted and for that appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1550
Money Laundering - predicate offence - delay in trial proceedings - hamper to right to life and liberty of the applicants, who have been in custody since 24 months and 25 months respectively - applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. This principle is nothing but a crystallisation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 21, which says that that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
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 VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [2023 (11) TMI 63 - 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 VERSUS 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 prosecution has named 10 accused persons and cited 108 witnesses. There are 5172 pages of documents which need to be analysed. Moreover, it is noted that the Trial is still at the stage of arguments on charge. In addition, this Court has also been informed that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court hearing the matter on charge has demitted office on 30.09.2024 and a replacement has not yet been appointed to take over the said Court. There is also likelihood of supplementary challan being filed. It is thus observed that the delay at present cannot be said to be attributable to the present applicants - In a situation such as the present case, where there are multiple accused persons, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses to be examined and 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. Liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed by Section 45 without taking all other germane considerations into account.
As held in the Catena of judgements discussed hereinabove, 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 - No evidence has been led to show that the present applicants are a flight risk. In fact, records would show that both the applicants have joined investigation on multiple occasions. Both the applicants have been released once on interim bail and during that period no incident has been alleged by the respondent to have occurred wherein the applicants have tried to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the fact that the main accused is out on bail, the period of custody undergone, likelihood of supplementary challan being filed and that the trial is yet to commence, keeping in mind the import of the Catena of decisions of Supreme Court discussed hereinabove, it is directed that both the applicants be released on regular bail subject to them furnishing respective personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M./link J.M. and subject to the further fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1406
Availability of statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Refund of money deposited with interest - HELD THAT:- This Court has not gone into the merits of the claim, which shall be considered by the court concerned in accordance with law and in accordance with the merits of the case, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order.
Certified copy of this order along with claims shall be filed before court concerned within ten days. The decision shall be taken by the court concerned on the claim in accordance with law and on the basis of material brought before the court by the petitioner in support of his claim.
The present writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1405
Grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy - HELD THAT:- For consideration of the bail application under PMLA, 2002 the Court need not go deep inside the merits of the case but should consider the prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. 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.”
The criminal activity of opening bogus/benami bank accounts and utilizing them for illegal online betting therefore the illegal funds belonging to Mahadev Online Book being transferred through the bogus bank account is the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002. The digital record seized in the case and from the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 clearly establishes the link of the present applicant with the illegal betting website Sky Exchange and the generation of proceeds of crime through it. In the statement of Prashant Bagari recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, the involvement of the present applicant Nitin Tibrewal at the highest level of Sky Exchange clearly appeared which corroborates the statement Smt. Preeti Rathi and Kamal Kishore Rathi the present applicant Nitin Tibrewal was engaged in online betting through Sky Exchange.
On perusal of the material produced in the present case, it is not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions in either from Techpro IT Solutions or from other sources and owned a property at UAE. 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. Although the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 is required to be tested at the time of trial, for the purpose of consideration of bail application the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 can be considered against the applicant.
It cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. Considering the role of the applicant in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of crime in Mahadev Book App, it is found that, there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate 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 are reasonable grounds 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 required to grant bail to the applicant.
The present bail application filed by the applicant Nitin Tibrewal is rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1352
Grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy - It was held by High Court that '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 are reasonable grounds 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 required to grant bail to the applicant.' - HELD THAT:- Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, official translation and permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures are allowed.
Issue notice returnable on 29th November, 2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1351
Seeking grant of Regular bail - creating fraudulent documents for availing LC facility from the banks - manipulating accounts to inflate stock-in-transit and create bogus debtors - Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the investigation was initiated in the year 2019 and the prosecution has named 156 accused persons and cited 82 witnesses. There are 2.5 lac pages of documents which need to be analysed. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the supplementary chargesheet vide order dated 26.07.2024. It is also observed that in the supplementary complaint dated 08.03.2024, permission was taken by the ED under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation into the matter. As such, the Trial is yet to commence.
When there are multiple accused persons, lacs of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses to be examined, the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future. Importantly, the delay being not attributable to accused, keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA as a tool for incarceration is not permissible. Flow of liberty cannot be dammed by Section 45 without taking all other germane considerations into account. It is the duty of Constitutional Courts to champion the constitutional cause of Liberty and uphold the majesty of Article 21.
Moreover, as repeatedly held, Constitutional Courts can always exercise their powers to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India and stringent provisions for the grant of bail such as those provided in Section 45 of the PMLA do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to do so. The right of liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is a sacrosanct right which needs to be protected and duly enforced even in cases where stringent provisions have been made applicable by way of special legislation. The stringent provisions would have to be interpreted with due regard to Article 21 and in case of a conflict, the stringent provisions, such as section 45 of the PMLA in the instant case, would have to give way.
In the present cases, both the applicants were arrested on 11.01.2024. They have been in custody since more than 9 months. Moreover, the trial in the predicate as well as the present complaint is yet to commence and would take some time to conclude. It is also pertinent to note that the main accused and other similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail - No evidence has been led to show that the present applicants are a flight risk. In fact, records would show that both the applicants have joined investigation on multiple occasions. There is no incident alleged by the respondent wherein the applicants have tried to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the fact that the main accused are out on bail, the period of custody undergone and that the trial is yet to commence, it is directed that both the applicants be released on regular bail subject to them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M. and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1071
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - attachment of the immovable property - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the instant case, on the complaint filed by the competent authority under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the PML Act, the Adjudicating Authority i.e, respondent No.4 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the PML Act, has passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 in Original Complaint No. 1738 of 2022 confirming the Provisional Attachment order No.11 of 2022 passed by respondent No.3 and against the said order, an appeal lies under Section 26 of the PML Act.
In the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles for entertaining the writ petitions, when alternative remedy is available.
In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others [2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] the Hon’ble Apex Court while reiterating the principles laid down above, has observed that the High Courts will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.
In the instant case, in view of the complicated issues involved in this writ petition, which require determination basing on the evidence, and as the petitioner is having alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 26 of PML Act, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act before the Appellate Tribunal.
This Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and on filing such appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall examine and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 904
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offence - diversion of Rs. 1530.99 crores from the loan amount for a purpose other than it was sanctioned - power to arrest - reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding providing ‘reasons to believe’ to the person being arrested by ED has been dealt with expansively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ARVIND KEJRIWAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2024 (7) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that it is difficult to accept that the “reasons to believe,” as recorded in writing, are not to be furnished, and the requirements in Section 19 (1) PMLA, are the jurisdictional conditions to be satisfied for arrest, the validity of which can be challenged by the accused and examined by the Court.
In compliance with the statutory mandate of S. 19 of PMLA, the arresting officer at the arrest stage had apprised the petitioner of his reasons of belief and the grounds that necessitated such an arrest. Consequently, the arrest conformed with the requirements of section 19 of the PMLA Act, 2002 - An illegal arrest, as determined by a breach of the fundamental requirements of Section 19, invalidates the arrest and prevents the possibility of re-arrest based on the same justifications. This is because the violation infringed upon the individual's constitutional rights.
A perusal of the grounds of arrest explicitly reveal and point to the effect that the Arresting Officer had conveyed his intention, reasons, grounds and believe to arrest the petitioner. The order of grounds of arrest is in conformity with the requirement of Section 19 of PMLA Act. The satisfaction of the concerned Officer is also duly reflected in the wordings and the necessity of arrest and has also clearly revealed. Thus, there is no fault in the grounds of arrest and consequent arrest.
One of the reasons which necessitated the petitioner’s arrest was the non-recovery of massive amount of proceeds of crime. The grounds of arrest are self-sufficient and need no other clarity from this Court.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 681
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - long incarceration under Section 436A of the CrPC - whether twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act are fulfilled - effect of the twin conditions on the entitlement of the Applicant in getting bail - HELD THAT:- It is required to be noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] considered the applicability of Section 436A of the CrPC which is concerning the maximum punishment for which an under trial prisoner can be detained to the offence punishable under PMLA, in view of Section 45 of PMLA imposing twin conditions before considering application of the Accused facing prosecution for the offences under the PMLA. It has been held that Section 436A of the CrPC has come into effect on 23rd June 2006 and the said provision is the subsequent law enacted by the Parliament after enactment of PMLA and Section 436A will prevail and will apply in spite of rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act.
The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India has held that Section 436A of the CrPC will apply even to the offences under the PMLA. Thus, what has been held is that in case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA can suitably be relaxed.
In the present case, the Applicant has been arrested in the scheduled offences on 24th February 2020. The Applicant has been arrested in the PMLA case on 5th March 2021 when he was in custoday in scheduled offences. Thus, the Applicant is behind bar for about 4 years and 8 months. As the Applicant has been arrested in the PMLA case on 5th March 2021 and therefore even if the date of arrest in the PMLA case i.e. 5th March 2021 is taken into consideration then also the Applicant is incarcerated for about 3 years and 7 months which is half of the maximum punishment (i.e. 7 years) prescribed for offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
Thus, case is made for grant of bail to the Applicant on the ground of long incarceration - the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 570
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - Proceeds of crime - amassing huge assets disproportionate to his known source of income - burden of prove - offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 472 of IPC and offences under Sections 7, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether any prima facie materials are made available against the petitioner in the complaint filed or not? - HELD THAT:- The expression “money-laundering”, ordinarily, means the process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However, Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence, as defined, captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money- laundering. This is amply clear from the original provision, which has been further clarified by insertion of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, Section 3, as amended.
Mere possession of proceeds of crime would be sufficient to invoke the provisions of PMLA. Using the proceeds of crime by itself is an offence. Since the scope of Section 3 is wider enough to cover various circumstances in order to curb the economic offences, High Court cannot restrict its meaning so as to restrain the Authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA.
Section 24 of PMLA denotes “Burden of Proof”. “In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under PMLA in a case of a person charged with offence of money laundering under Section 3, the authority or Court shall unless the contrary is proved presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and in the case of any other person, the authority or Court may presume that such proceeds of crime involved in money laundering”. Therefore, the presumptions of the authorities, investigation conducted and documents collected would be sufficient to proceed against a person under PMLA. Unless contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the affected person, who in turn has to prove his innocence during the course of trial. Adjudication of those materials placed by the petitioners would be unnecessary for this Court, while dealing with the discharge petitions.
The Trial Court considered the allegations set out in the complaint and formed an opinion that the petitioner has failed to made out prima facie case for discharge. There are no infirmity or perversity with reference to the findings made by the Special Court rejecting the discharge petition.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 506
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - predicate offences - amass of assets disproportionate to known sources of income - twin test contemplated u/s 45 of the PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- Since the check period extends from 12.01.2011 to 31.08.2020, offences have been registered against the applicant under the PC Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of the year 2018 as also post-amendment - the offences have been registered in the predicate offence under the FIR as per Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act (prior to amendment in the year 2018) and Section 13 (2) red with Section 13 (1) (b) of the PC Act (post its amendment in the year 2018).
In the present case, admittedly, till date, the chargesheet has not been filed by the CBI in connection with the FIR registered against the applicant in the predicate offence. In other words, the investigation into the said matter is still pending and it is yet to culminate into filing of a final report.
In the present case, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the offence which is treated as the predicate offence, is a peculiar offence, the principal ingredient of which is failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets in question and thereafter, it can be said that specific assets could be categorized as disproportionate assets or assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused. In the present case, the CBI has not even filed a chargesheet and if the applicant is able to satisfactorily account for the assets alleged to be disproportionate to his known sources of income, the CBI may not have any occasion to file the chargesheet against the applicant - The investigation still remaining pending in the predicate offence, in the facts of this case and the nature of offence alleged against the applicant, shows that what could be termed as proceeds of crime is yet in a flux and indeterminate, due to which this Court finds substance in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the applicant.
This Court is of the opinion that the applicant has indeed satisfied the stringent twin test contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA, as he has made out a prima facie case on merits to satisfy the first limb of the test and the second limb is also satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, in the context of period of incarceration suffered by the applicant and remote possibility of the trial being completed within a reasonable period of time, inures to the benefit of the applicant and the present application deserves to be allowed.
The applicant shall be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 461
Money Laundering - validty of FIR - prosecution complaint quashed - Whether when the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate had been quashed by the Supreme Court, would the statements made under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 of various witnesses continue to form the basis of F.I.R. which was to be lodged on the basis of the communication passed on to the State under Section 66(2) of the PML Act? - HELD THAT:- When on the date when the ED had communicated to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 28.7.2023 (purportedly under section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002) then on that date the prosecution complaint was very much surviving and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the communication being sent on 28.7.2023 and in the lodging of the FIR on 30.7.2023. Also if the prosecution complaint had been set aside, there was information available with the ED which had compulsorily to be disclosed to the relevant authority for taking necessary action. In the instant case, if the FIR is perused, then it becomes clear that the Directorate of Enforcement while investigating in a money laundering case under the provisions of PML Act, 2002 had discovered that a company known by the name of M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. which was based in Noida was illegally granted a tender to supply holograms to the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh. FIR therefore was registered under sections 420, 468, 471 473, 484 and 120-B IPC.
The accused government officials and the owner of the firm M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. along with Anwar Dhebar were prima facie involved in the case in question. A bare perusal of the FIR does not evidently disclose the complicity in the case of Anwar Dhebar with the crime in question but the counter affidavits of the State definitely reveal such incriminating evidence which confirms the involvement of Anwar Dhebar. The whatsapp chat between Anwar Dhebar and company officials of the firm definitely go to indicate that there were dubious activities going on in between the accused persons.
It is a clear law as has been held by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, [2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT]; State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani [2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT] and Lalita Kumar vs. State of U.P. [2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT] that if there is a cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR, then no interference is to be made by the Court. In the instant case, so far as the petitioners Anil Tuteja, Arun Pati Tripathi and Niranjan Das are concerned we do find that against them a definite allegation is there in the FIR and they disclose cognizable offences under sections 420, 468, 471 473, 484 and 120-B IPC.
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT], an FIR could be quashed if there was nothing established from the reading of the FIR and from the evidence collected thereafter. In the instant case the evidence gathered after the lodging of the FIR definitely showed complicity of the petitioner Anwar Dhebar with the crime in question. The law with regard to criminal cases stands on a different footing from the law with regard to service law etc. wherein an order cannot be substituted with reasons etc. in the form of subsequent affidavits - In the case at hand, it is found that Anwar Dhebar was named in the FIR and during the investigation his complicity in the crime which was a cognizable one cannot be prima facie ruled out, the evidence in regard to which was clearly to be found in the counter affidavit of the State and of the E.D.
The answer to the question that whether when the prosecution complaint itself had been done away with, could the FIR stand on the basis of the statements etc. which were recorded under section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, would be that definitely the information which was gathered under section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 was a material in the possession of the Director of ED which had to be transmitted to the concerned agency for necessary action. In the instant case, the State of Uttar Pradesh was the concerned agency which had to look into the fact as to whether the work of manufacturing holograms was given to M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. illegally by the accused persons and whether the accused persons for their illegal acts had charged commission.
It will be very unsafe to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for all initiation of criminal cases, statements made before the authorities under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 could never be used. Such statements which are in the knowledge of an investigating agency can always be used for initiating or for furthering of any pending investigation. It of course need not be used for the purposes of a trial and definitely they could not be categorized as confessions or admissions - Also when the ED had by its communication dated 28.07.2023 informed the State of Uttar Pradesh and which information had resulted in the F.I.R. dated 30.07.2023 then that information was an information under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002 and that information could be always used by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Still further even if the crimes had allegedly been discovered in the State of Chhatisgarh, when it was discovered by ED that duplicate holograms were being made in NOIDA a district of the State of Uttar Pradesh then it was in the fitness of things that the State of Uttar Pradesh was informed about the wrongs which were being done on its territory. Also there was nothing malicious in the fact that when the State of Chhatisgarh did not react to the communication dated 11.07.2023, then the ED had written to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 28.07.2023 about the activities which were being done in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
It is not required to interfere in the writ petitions - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 460
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - cattle smuggling was happening from India to Bangladesh by paying illegal gratification to BSF personnel deputed on the Border - section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The guarantee of Personal liberty of every individual envisioned by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be curtailed except by due process of law. The fundamental principle of “bail is the rule and jail is exception”, has been time and again emphasized by the Apex Court and other Courts and has been recently reiterated in the case of Vijay Nair vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 (9) TMI 321 - SC ORDER], as the foundational presumption of criminal law is that of “innocence until proven guilty”.
In Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2009 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the courts must strike a balance between the valuable right of liberty of individual and the larger interest of society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that the economic offences constitute a class apart and must be approached differently in regards to the bail, as has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, [1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT].
The allegations against the Applicant are essentially are in the nature of facilitating the offence of illegal cattle smuggling by providing authoritative support and consequent clout that he exercised on account of his being in the Police and being connected with an influential Political leader, the co-accused Mr. Anubrata Mondal. He helped in procuring stray cattle from various markets, collecting cash on behalf of co-accused, Mr. Anubrata Mondal, and laundering the PoC. The Applicant is an accused in the predicate offence as well, though admitted to bail in the said offence by this Court - Though the investigations qua the Petitioner are complete and the Supplementary Complaint has been filed in the Court, but the trial has not been proceeding since last 2 years.
Looking at his antecedents, he is not a flight risk, and he has deep roots in the Society, having been in the employment of the Govt. The evidence being essentially documentary, is not likely to be tampered or the witnesses influenced - Applicant has been in judicial custody from 09.06.2022, in the scheduled offence, and from 07.10.2022, in the present case, i.e. for over two years.
The Applicant is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 459
Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - whether appeal is bad for non-joinder of Government of Odisha as a necessary party as the land belongs to Government of Odisha which is given on lease to the Appellant Trust? - essential ingredients of attachment of property u/s 5(1) of PMLA satisfied or not - no reason to believe that the said properties are involved in money laundering - Appellant Trust is a bona fide receiver and had no knowledge of the alleged offence - no prosecution complaint has been filed against the Appellant Trust within 365 days as stipulated u/s 8(3)(a) of PMLA - Appellant Trust was neither named in FIR or in ECIR and not an accused in the scheduled offence or in the prosecution complaint - no nexus or link between the attached property and the criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offence.
HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the land has been transferred to the Appellant Trust by the Government of Odisha under a lease deed with certain rights and liabilities but the title of the land has not been passed over to the Appellant Trust. The lease is for 99 years with effect from 11-1-2007 for a premium of Rs. 20 Lakhs at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre with yearly rent of Rs. 20 thousand and cess of Rs. 15 thousand at the rate of 75 percent of the annual rent or as admissible from time to time besides the cost of trees standing on the demised land. The Appellant Trust has taken a plea that the Government of Odisha was neither made a party to the proceedings initiated before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority nor a show cause notice was served upon it by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority u/s 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002.
There is no necessity of making Government of Odisha as a party by the Respondent ED as the title of the government land cannot be transferred in favor of the Central Government as absolute owner in the event of confiscation of the land, if the Respondent ED succeeds in the criminal trial of prosecution complaint under the PMLA. Whatever rights and liabilities are transferred to the Appellant Trust under the lease deed can only be passed on to the Respondent ED, as the Central Government and the subsequent lessee will step into the shoes of the Appellant Trust for the remaining lease period. The right, title and interest of Government of Odisha over the land in question is not any way effected - the confirmation of the PAO by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority sans Government of Odisha is not bad in law. This issue is accordingly answered against the Appellant Trust.
Whether essential ingredients of attachment of property as provided in section 5(1) PMLA, 2002 read with the second proviso to section 5(1)(b) PMLA, 2002, has not been satisfied? - HELD THAT:- As it appears from the PAO that there is a subjective satisfaction of the Respondent ED that the property in question is liable to be attached, the essential ingredients of section 5(1) read with second proviso to section 5(1)(b) of PMLA, 2002 are satisfied on the plain reading of the PAO. There is reason to believe which is recorded in writing in the PAO, so there is due compliance of the aforesaid section and proviso thereto in issuing the PAO. The very intention of issuing the attachment order and confirmation of the same are only to protect the property in question, till the conclusion of trial. It also appears that the Respondent ED has not taken possession of the property, nor ousted the Appellant Trust from the property - the answer to this issue is decided against the Appellant Trust.
Whether there is no reason to believe that the questioned properties are involved in money laundering? - HELD THAT:-There is no dispute that the Appellant Trust is a registered trust and covered by the definition of "Person" u/s 2(1)(s) of PMLA, 2002. Secondly, the prosecution complaint was filed on 31-3-2016 with the prayer to pass orders confiscating the attached property. In other words, the property attached in the present proceedings are already part of the prosecution complaint. In the present appeal, the property has already been a part of the prosecution complaint in the year 2016, when there was no limitation provided u/s 8(3)(a) for continuation of the conformation of attached property either during the investigation or the pendency of the proceedings in related to any offence under this Act before a court. For the first time the limitation of 90 days was inserted in the PMLA, 2002 on dated 19-4-2018 and subsequently 90 days was substituted by 365 days on dated 20-3-2019. In other words, when the prosecution complaint was filed on 31-3-2016 there was no such limitation. The aforesaid provision of law does not speak about continuation of any investigation or criminal proceedings in any court of law against any person, but it states about the property.
The Trust is neither named in the FIR nor in the ECIR and not an accused in the scheduled offence or in the prosecution complaint - HELD THAT:- The proceeding before this tribunal is with regards to attachment of the tainted property derived/obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity. In the present case, it is Shri Prashant Kumar Dash who is allegedly indulged in criminal activity and generated proceeds of crime and thereafter the said proceeds of crime was utilized for the development of the building of the Appellant Trust, payment of salary to the staff etc. while he was the Managing Trustee of Appellant Trust. In the aforesaid fact and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellant Trust that the attachment is bad in law on the ground that the Appellant Trust has not been proceeded against either in scheduled offence or in the prosecution complaint. Therefore, this issue is answered against the Appellant Trust.
Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has followed the statutory requirements as required u/s 8(1) & 8(2) of PMLA, 2002? - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is examined. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has clearly examined factual as well as legal issues in the present case. The facts have been discussed in the impugned order. In the said order, the submissions made by the Appellant Trust admitting the receipt of the aforesaid amount. It is also observed in the impugned order that no bank has approached the authority claiming the property and also held that there is no requirement of supplying the recorded reasons to the defendants and that the PAO/OC sufficiently conveys what they have to meet as observed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in the case of Brizo Reality Co. (P.) Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 993 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - the Appellant Trust has no merit so far as this issue is concerned.
No nexus or link between the attached property and the criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offence - HELD THAT:- It has been admitted that a sum of Rs. 9,01,66,000/- which was generated allegedly from the criminal activity by Shri Dash has been infused into the Trust and that the same amount was utilized by the Appellant Trust in various construction work as well as payment of salary to staff, return of amount to the existing trustees invested by them etc. this was done when the Appellant Trust was managed by Shri Dash during the period 2009-2012 and that the said amount was not returned to him after his vacation from the Trust. These facts go to the root of the case that there is a nexus between the alleged proceeds of crime with the property in question attached herein - this issue is also answered against the Appellant Trust.
The appeal has no merit. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order - Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 458
Money Laundering - limitation period for filing of prosecution complaint - provisional attachment of assets - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - money was siphoned off by diverting the funds to several group companies to hide its true source and to use the funds for other purposes - HELD THAT:- The relevant notification in this regard is GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 and the amended clause came into effect on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 19.04.2018. Accordingly, the respondent Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. As per appellant's own admission, the prosecution complaint in this case was filed on 16.07.2018. The said date was within the limitation period of 90 days.
In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit [2023 (5) TMI 1246 - SUPREME COURT], while upholding the position that if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out that in order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. It was also held that merely because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyze the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. No such difficulty in interpretation or implementation existed vis-à-vis the PMLA, 2002 which made the provisions of Section 8(3)(a) impossible to interpret without the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2018.
In Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab's case [1964 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court noted that it is well-settled that procedural amendments to a law, in the absence of anything to the contrary, apply retrospectively in the sense that they apply to all actions after the date they come into force even though the actions may have begun earlier or the claim on which the action may be based may be of an anterior date. In the present case, the Directorate has complied with the requirement of the amended law after it came into force by filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of that date.
There are no merit in the appellant's contention that the subject properties which were provisionally attached were liable to be released on account of the respondent Directorate's failure to file a prosecution complaint within 90 days of the order of the Ld. AA dated 19.01.2015. The period of 90 days would commence on the date the amendment came into force, i.e., 19.04.2018. The respondent's having complied with the requirement of filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, there is no illegality in the continued attachment of the properties during the pendency of the same.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 457
Money Laundering - Provisional attachment of assets - scheduled offence - limitation period for filing of prosecution complaint - HELD THAT:- The relevant notification in this regard is GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 and the amended clause came into effect on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 19.04.2018. Accordingly, the respondent Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. As per appellants' own admission, the prosecution complaint in this case was filed on 16.07.2018. It is found that counted from 19.04.2018, the said date was within the limitation period of 90 days.
In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit [2023 (5) TMI 1246 - SUPREME COURT], while upholding the position that if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out that in order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. It was also held that merely because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyze the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively - In the present case neither the amendment states that it was meant to be clarificatory or declaratory nor any such necessary implication arises considering the text of the amendment. Also, no such difficulty in interpretation or implementation existed vis-à-vis the PMLA, 2002 which made the provisions of Section 8(3)(a) impossible to interpret without the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2018.
There are no merit in the appellant's contention that the subject properties which were provisionally attached were liable to be released on account of the respondent Directorate's failure to file a prosecution complaint within 90 days of the order of the Ld. AA dated 19.01.2015. The period of 90 days would commence from the date the amendment came into force, i.e., 19.04.2018. The respondent's having complied with the requirement of filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, there is no illegality in the continued attachment of the properties during the pendency of proceedings arising from the prosecution complaint which has been filed by the respondents.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 446
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - charging of illegal commission - Sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor wherein usage of hologram along with other methods was modus operandi - payment of annual commission by distilleries for operation of cartel, which make out a cognizable offence under Sections 7 and 112 of the PC Act and section 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the allegations and scope of investigation in both the FIRs are different from each other. The State is conducting investigation regarding allegation of charging of illegal commission, sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor wherein usage of hologram alongwith other methods was a modus operandi and payment of annual commission by distillers for operation of cartel, which are not within the scope of investigation of the FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh, being No. 4/2024 on 17.01.2024 on the basis of the letter dated 11.07.2023 of the ED, is much more detailed one running in about 11 pages. It states that proceeds of crime is estimated to be Rs. 2161 Crores. Illegal commission has been charged from the liquor supplies for accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh. Sale of off the record unaccounted illicit country liquor from the State run shops was done with the active involvement of Distillers, Hologram manufacturer, Bottle Maker, transporter, manpower management and District Excise Officials. Annual Commission paid by Distillers for allowing them to operate a cartel and divide the market share among themselves in the State of Chhattisgarh. The role of Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripath and other unnamed senior officers of Excise Department and local District Level Excise Officers have also been mentioned. The said offence has different facets including multiple sections of the PC Act, IPC and PMLA.
The main responsibilities of Excise Departments are to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State. But the criminal syndicate led by Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja has turned these objectives upside down - The CSMCL was established with the vision to provide genuine liquor, to stop sale of illegal Liquor, to provide liquor on MRP. It established its own stores to retail the liquor/ beer/wine/country liquor after procuring liquor from manufacturers directly.
The investigation conducted has revealed that the transportation of liquor from distillers to shops and supply of duplicate holograms to distillers was looked after by Arvind Singh. Monthly targets were set by Anwar Dhebar who used to communicate to MD CSMCL either directly or through Arvind Singh. Then senior Excise officials used to coordinate with Distillers, Hologram Makers, Bottle Makers, Transporters and local Excise Officials to ensure that the entire system ran flawlessly and no one interferes in this illegal State-run racket. The target of kachcha liquor sale was flexible and, on an average, around 200 trucks carrying 800 cases of country liquor per month were supplied by the distillers to the syndicate during the financial year 2019- 20.
The syndicate apart from collecting commission on sale of accounted liquor (Part-A) and sale of unaccounted kachcha illegal liquor (Part-B) also charged quid pro quo bribes from main distillers so that they can form a cartel and divide the entire market share among themselves - The ED investigation has established that in the Excise Department of State of Chhattisgarh massive unprecedented corruption was done between 2019 to 2023 in multiple ways. The total extent of extortion is coming to around Rs. 2161 Crore. The entire amount is nothing but the rightful amount which should have gone to the State Exchequer and should have been taxed and yielded revenue for Central and State governments. Thus, this is the proceeds of crime which ED is investigating and trying to establish money trail and trace the assets created out of these proceeds of crime.
From perusal of the FIR and the ECIR in question, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioners. Moreover, the material collected during the investigation goes to show that the nature of offences committed by the accused/ petitioners has caused huge financial loss to the State exchequer and the estimated proceeds of crime is of around Rs. 2161 Crores. In the FIR, there are 70 named persons including bureaucrats, politicians, businessman and other individuals and the present is a case of an organized crime which needs to be taken to the logical conclusion by the investigating agencies i.e. the State Police and the ED. None of the action of the respondent State/ACB EOW or the ED is found to be in contravention of any of the provisions of the PMLA or in violation of any order passed by the Supreme Court.
Thus, no strong case is made out for interference by this Court at this stage - petition dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
