|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 2027 Records
-
2024 (9) TMI 1029
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - Non-Compliance and Misuse of Subsidized Coal - offences u/s 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that admittedly there are various FIRs against Ram Binod Sinha in the year 2010-11, in which for the scheduled offence so far as the second ECIR is concerned, the FIR No. 10 of 2019 dated 20.01.2019. In the first ECIR, the petitioner was called upon and he has appeared on 18.05.2012 and on 09.03.2023 to 05.07.2023 i.e. eight times and the first search in light of Section 17 of the PML Act in the first ECIR was made on 03.03.2023. Second ECIR was registered on 12.12.2023, in which, 7 persons are named. The coal on truck bearing number JH-02-AR-6640 was to be delivered to M/s Om Coke Industry, Ramgarh, Jharkhand, however, the said truck was intercepted at Hesargarha on the allegation that Saiyyad Sulamani was taking the quantity of 19.56 MT coal from Toppa Colliery to Varanasi Mandi. It was pointed out that Varanasi is at the distance of 326 kms from the intercepted point and the Ramgarh is 11 Kms from the intercepted point.
The second search was made on 16.01.2024 and allegations are made that 13 firms are non-operational / non-functional and further allegations are made that even the commission for getting the coal was at the subsidized rate. The search was conducted on 16.01.2024 and the petitioner was arrested on 07.50 PM on the same day.
In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the proceeds of crime saying that the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is further disclosed in the said judgment that the vehicle used in commission of scheduled offence may be attached as property in the concerned case (crime), it may still not be proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (u) of the 2002 Act. Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be regarded as proceeds of crime unless the concerned tax legislation prescribes such violation as an offence and such offence is included in the Schedule of the 2002 Act.
In view of this judgment, the property associated with the schedule offence must be derived or obtained by a person, as a result of criminal activity, relating to a scheduled offence. In para-8.2 of the prosecution complaint, it is clearly stated that the petitioner after investing Rs. 29,50,36,622.79/-, wherein the words ‘Paid and Purchase’ have been used, thus, prima facie it appears that that amount cannot be said to be the subject matter of amount used for the proceeds of crime.
The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2024.
Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 937
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - allegation on petitioner is that he had projected and concealed the property which was a proceed of crime in relation to a Scheduled Offence and was a beneficiary thereof - principles of parity - twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 not satisfied - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is evident that the proceeds of crime have been generated by one set of accused persons against whom the CBI case has been registered. However, the petitioner herein was roped in subsequently for laundering the proceeds of crime which had been generated by the accused persons in the predicate offence. Merely because those persons against whom the predicate offence has been registered, are also an accused under PMLA case would not in any way dilute or impact the involvement of the present petitioner whose role essentially has been determined to be in laundering the proceeds of crime. The argument, therefore, as projected by the petitioner, is not tenable.
There are 14 main accused persons who were Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly or beneficiaries, but none of them has been arrested, except the petitioner which shows the role assigned to him is only of acquiring the land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs and the subsequent transfer of the company to Rabri Devi and Tejaswi Yadav in 2014 for a meagre amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The petitioner’s role is miniscule essentially to the extent of Rs. 10.83 lakhs. While in this regard, it is pertinent to observe that while considering the grant of Bail, the parity is not so much essential considering as the role of the petitioner in the commission of offence.
It is not disputed that out of 17 accused in PMLA, none of the accused even though they are the main perpetrators/beneficiaries of the offence under PMLA, have not been arrested and the prosecution Complaint had been filed against them without their arrest.
Iit becomes significant and pertinent to examine the role of the petitioner in the present case. The allegations against him are that he had acquired a land valuing 10.83 lacs, which was the tainted money on the premise that the proceeds of sale are less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the respondent that as per the prosecution, essentially the allegations made against the petitioner are that he had purchased the land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs which he transferred subsequently to the other main accused persons but actually the value of the land parcel was much more than its purchase value. Also, the Companies of the petitioner had been used for laundering the proceeds of crime - At no place has the respondent quantified the value of proceeds of crime to be more than that. Even if it is accepted as has been contended by the respondent, that the value of the land parcel was 3-4 times more than the value reflected but then too, it would be less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner is covered by the proviso thereby exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail.
It may be observed that he is not a flight risk, as he has all throughout been joining the investigations and at no point of time tried to evade the summons or to join the investigations. There has been no endeavour him to tamper with the evidence which is essentially documentary in nature or to influence the witnesses. The Triple Test for grant of bail is, therefore, satisfied by him.
The applicant is directed to be released forthwith on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 936
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - lack of evidence against petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of entry providers including the present petitioner used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram). The investigation further disclosed that Mukesh Mittal contacted Ram Prakash Bhatia, who is engaged in the illegal business of providing entries in lieu of commission for taking the entries into the bank account of Genda Ram. Subsequently, Ram Prakash Bhatia provided those entries with the help of his associate and present petitioner - The petitioner is the mastermind behind using the bank accounts for the purpose of laundering/routing of funds which makes it established that the petitioner is a key person of the nexus, which provides entries in lieu of commission and, hence, he was involved in the offence of money laundering of proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram.
When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further, bail is the rule and jail is an exception but competing forces need to be carefully measured before enlarging the accused on bail. Socio economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail since socio economic offences have deep-rooted conspiracies affecting moral fibre of society and causing irreparable harm. Moreover, investigating agency was in process of expediting the trial.
Considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and he is involved in proceeds of crime, as such, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail - bail application dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 935
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - non-compliance with the provision of section 19(1) of PMLA 2002 at the time of arrest - HED THAT:- The petitioner or his learned counsel was not informed of the grounds of his arrest and therefore, the arrest is bad in law. The petitioner has placed reliance on several authorities including Pankaj Bansal [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT], Arvind Kejriwal [2024 (9) TMI 780 - SUPREME COURT] Madhu Limaye [1968 (12) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT] and Prabir Purkayastha [2024 (5) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT] in this connection. The arrest memo discloses that the petitioner refused to receive the same after going through each page of the grounds of arrest stated therein and conveyed to him. Therefore the plea taken by the petitioner is too weak to stand on its own feet. No illegality or irregularity in the arrest procedure has been made out.
It is trite law an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail and the Court entertaining such subsequent applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected - In the present case, this Court, while turning down the prayer of the petitioner on two occasions has dealt with the matter on merits and has come to a conclusion that there is material to show that the Enforcement Directorate has been able to collect material which would satisfy the presumptions attached to sections 22 and 23 of the 2002 Act and it cannot be held that the petitioner is “not guilty of such offence” at this stage.
True, the conditions laid down in section 45 of the 2002 Act are the guiding factors for grant of bail to an accused under the said Act and the accused has to satisfy the said conditions for earning an order of bail in his favour. In a recent judgment in Manish Sisodia [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Court has held that the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 45 of the 2002 Act.
Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as it stands after amendment of section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that a first-time offender (who has never been convicted for any offence in the past) shall be released on bond by the Court if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law.
The petitioner being in custody for about two years is short of about four months in completing one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment. It is also not in dispute that he has not been convicted of any offence earlier and is therefore a first-time offender.
The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 934
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - conspiracy - siphoning of crores of rupees deposited by innocent depositors of the Bank - Whether the subsequent FIR can be subsumed into an existing ECIR also deserve consideration - HELD THAT:- Since the offence under Section 3 of the Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and the existence of a predicate offence, is a sine qua non for prosecution under the 2002 Act, which has been held to be not permissible on notional basis, or on the assumption that the scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending inquiry/trial including by way of a criminal complaint before the competent forum, it is only if the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, or the criminal case against him is quashed by the court of competent jurisdiction, the predicate offence having come to an end, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or any one claiming such property be linked to the scheduled offence through him.
The question whether the subsequent FIR can be subsumed into an existing ECIR also deserve consideration. The term ‘subsumption’ or ‘subsuming’ is not defined under the statute, but in the normal parlance, it means to include something or someone. As per Merrium Webster’s dictionary, ‘subsume’ is defined as to include a place within something larger or more comprehensive; encompasses as a sub-ordinate or a component element. The word ‘subsume’ would therefore be indicative of combining, comprehending, comprising, covering, inserting etc.
The pronouncement of law in Vijay M. Chaudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] to the effect that if the person accused of any scheduled offence is finally discharged/acquitted or the criminal case against him, is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, no case of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such property through him, was presented in favour of the petitioners.
Admittedly, the ECIR is based on the subject FIR as it contained an accusation against Rosary Education Group, which had obtained loan and secured the loan by mortgaging the property and they deceived the Seva Bank and their shareholders, and the accused persons i.e. Aranhas Group was alleged of amassing illegal wealth to the tune of Rs.11.5 crores as it did not repay the loan of Rs.11.5 crores obtained from Seva Bank against the mortgage property - Section 420 of the IPC being included as a scheduled offence in the Schedule to the PMLA Act, 2002, the subject ECIR was registered.
It is now well settled that offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002, is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a ‘scheduled offence’ and it is concerning the process or activity connected with such property which constitute the offence of money laundering. The provisions of the Act of 2002, cannot be set into motion, and it do not permit prosecution of any person thereunder on notional basis, or on the assumption that a ‘scheduled offence’ has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including filing of a criminal complaint before the competent forum.
The grievance of the petitioners do not deserve any consideration. Necessarily, the Writ Petitions filed by different accused, seeking similar relief cannot be entertained.
Hence, the Petitions are dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 933
Hawala and money laundering - proceeds of crime - locus standi of the petitioner to prefer the Writ Petition - HELD THAT:- The Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto sensu. The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State. Therefore, in the facts of this case there cannot be any direction issued to consider Ext. P3 which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate. Moreover, the statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 filed in this case indicates that the Enforcement Directorate has registered an ECIR/KCZO/11/23 in the above matter and the same is being enquired into as well. Thus we see no reason to direct the consideration of Ext. P3.
The prayer in Ext. P5 is that suitable action be taken by the State Government under Section 6 of the NIA Act 2008. This is misconceived. A reading of Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008 shows that the process starts with the registration of an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C in respect of an offence set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008. A reading of Ext. P2 final report indicates that even in the final report there is no indication that any of the offences in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008 has been committed.
The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 844
Money Laundering - Bribe - proceeds of crime - obtaining illegal gratification from the passengers arriving at Chennai from foreign countries for clearance of their unaccompanied baggage by charging less or no duty through private person - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the Petitioner herein had fixed the bribe amount and received illegal gratification through Shri G Kumar for the fraudulent clearance of goods in commercial quantity in the guise of unaccompanied baggage during his tenure in the UB (Air) Unit. Hence, mere acquisition of bribe amounts to proceeds of crime and thereby falls under section 3 of PMLA. Hence, such a contention is ought to be rejected.
Pertinently, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Padmanabhan Kishore Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2021 (4) TMI 263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] supported the views raised by the petitioner in the present revision petition. However, the said case was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the Enforcement Directorate in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore [2022 (11) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT].
Therefore, the ground raised on restrospectivity by the petitioner deserves no merit consideration - involvement in corrupt activities itself is Proceeds of Crime within the definition of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. That being the scope of pre-amended Section 3, question of discharging the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the Proceeds of Crime after 2009, is untenable and is rejected.
The Trial Court considered both the pre-amended Section 3 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the scope of Section 2(1)(u) in conjunction with Section 3 has been considered by the Trial Court in a right direction as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings made by the Trial Court in the order impugned.
The impugned order stands confirmed and accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 780
Illegal arrest - application for the grant of regular bail rejected - declination to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - FIR stated irregularities, falsification, undue advantage, and a conspiracy among the persons holding positions of responsibility within the GNCTD, in framing and implementing the Excise Policy for the year 2021-2022 - Appellant’s name did not figure in the FIR.
Whether the procedure undertaken in arresting the Appellant was illegal? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, following the interrogation, the CBI moved another application to the Trial Court on 25.06.2024, seeking permission to arrest the Appellant. The CBI justified the arrest on the grounds that the Appellant had allegedly given evasive responses during questioning and that custodial interrogation was necessary to confront him with evidence and uncover a purported larger conspiracy involving the accused persons in the implementation of the excise policy. The Trial Court, after considering these reasons, allowed the CBI's application for the Appellant's arrest and issued production warrants on the same day.
Whether Section 41A(3) was violated, thereby rendering the arrest per se illegal? - HELD THAT:- First, it is trite law that there is no insurmountable hurdle in the conversion of judicial custody into police custody by an order of a Magistrate. Thus, there is no impediment in terms of arresting a person already in custody for the purposes of investigation, whether for the same offence or for an altogether different offence - Second, Section 41A(3) allows for arrest, provided the reasons are recorded, justifying the necessity of such a step, and the police officer is satisfied that the individual should be arrested. In this context, we have already noted that the CBI, in their application dated 25.06.2024, clearly recorded the reasons as to why they deemed the Appellant's arrest necessary. These reasons were also summarized in the arrest memo dated 26.06.2024. It is important to clarify that our current analysis is limited to verifying whether the CBI followed the correct procedure, including the recording of sufficient reasons - Third, Section 41A(1), when read with Section 41A(3) CrPC, does not impose an absolute prohibition on the arrest of an individual against whom there exists reasonable suspicion of having committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. This is evident from the language of the provision itself. Section 41A(3) explicitly states that an arrest is permissible if the police officer believes it to be necessary and duly records the reasons for such arrest - There are no merit in the Appellant's contention that the CBI failed to comply with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letter and spirit.
Whether Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is applicable? - HELD THAT:- Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC clearly stipulates that an arrest under this provision can be made based on a complaint or credible information that an individual has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, with or without a fine. However, such an arrest must be conducted subject to the satisfaction of specific conditions outlined in subsections (a) to (e) - Having considered the CBI's compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC and the inapplicability of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the Appellant’s arrest does not suffer with any procedural infirmity. Consequently, the plea regarding non-compliance of these provisions, merits rejection.
Whether the Appellant is entitled to the relief of regular bail? - HELD THAT:- Although the procedure for the Appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and the Appellant’s right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our Constitution. The Appellant has been granted interim bail by this Court in the ED matter on 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024, arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the Trial Court, the High Court, and this Court in separate proceeding - given the Appellant’s position and his roots in the society, there seems to be no valid reason to entertain the apprehension of his fleeing the country. In any case, in order to assuage the apprehensions of the CBI, we may impose stricter bail conditions. As regard to Appellant indulging in influencing witnesses, it needs no emphasis that in the event of any such instance, it will amount to misuse of the concession of bail and necessary consequences will follow - the Appellant satisfies the requisite triple conditions for the grant of bail.
Whether the filing of a chargesheet is a change in circumstances warranting relegation to the trial court for grant of regular bail? - HELD THAT:- An undertrial should, ordinarily, first approach the Trial Court for bail, as this process not only provides the accused an opportunity for initial relief but also allows the High Court to serve as a secondary avenue if the Trial Court denies bail for inadequate reasons. This approach is beneficial for both the accused and the prosecution; if bail is granted without proper consideration, the prosecution too can seek corrective measures from the High Court.
Since notice was issued and the parties were apparently heard on merits by the High Court, it is not deemed necessary at this stage to relegate the Appellant to the Trial Court even though filing of a chargesheet is a change in the circumstances.
The Criminal Appeal challenging the legality of arrest (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10991/2024) is, hereby, dismissed.
In view of the separate order passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, there being a concurrent opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, authored by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant, the Criminal Appeal challenging the legality of arrest is dismissed - Appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 779
Money Laundering - breach of bank secrecy - collection of financial information of accounts, which were used for money laundering in benefit of a transnational criminal organization - proceedings under PMLA - Contracting state under PMLA - Effects of corruption in the economy of a country.
Proceedings under PMLA - HELD THAT:- An appeal against an Order U/s. 8(1) of the PMLA lies to the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA U/s. 26 of the PMLA and the same is to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Petitioner has also filed an appeal U/s. 26 of the PMLA in PMLA/FPA-PMLA No. 5322 of 2022 challenging the Order dated 21.10.2022 and that the same is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA.
Contracting state under PMLA - HELD THAT:- Chapter IX of the PMLA, titled 'Reciprocal Arrangements for Assistance in Certain Matters and Procedure of Attachment and Confiscation of property' deals with reciprocal arrangement with a contracting state.
Effects of corruption in the economy of a country - HELD THAT:- Businessmen often view corruption as a form of illegal tax due to the secrecy involved and the unpredictability of whether the bribe-taker will honour their part of the deal. This perception reduces their motivation to invest. This results in a significant reduction in investment and affects the economic growth of the nation in a serious way - Corruption results in the diversion of benevolent funds that are spent for the purpose of economic and social upliftment of the country and thus slows down the socio-economic growth of the country - When corruption takes the form of tax evasion or claiming improper tax exemptions, corruption brings about loss of tax revenue which further affects the economic growth of the country.
All the three grounds raised by the petitioner fail and thus, there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 705
Seeking grant of Regular Bail u/s 439 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 read with section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (by a woman) - Cattle smuggling was happening from India to Bangladesh by paying illegal gratification to BSF personnel deputed on the Border - HELD THAT:- The allegations essentially against the Applicant are that Satish Kumar who was the then Commandant of 36th Battalion of BSF and is the second husband of Tania Sanyal, had received the bribes for the business of Cattle smuggling across the border. The Applicant’s father, Anubrata Mondal had received the money from Satish Kumar and the Applicant had helped in laundering the money to the tune of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- through her Companies/Firm. Even though she projected herself as a primary School teacher, but there is enormous prima facie evidence to establish that she owns/ manages various Firms and Companies, in the accounts of which the proceeds of crime generated from the predicate offence of Cattle-Smuggling are laundered.
Indisputably, the Applicant is not an accused in the predicate offence.
It has been held in the recent decision of the Apex Court in Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], that right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a sacrosanct right which needs to be accepted even in cases where stringent provisions are incorporated in the special enactments.
Furthermore, Proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA, 2002 entitles a woman for special treatment, while her bail application is being considered. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 (8) TMI 1411 - SUPREME COURT], a reference has been made to Proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA, 2002 to observe that this Proviso permits a certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA being satisfied. While the Proviso does not operate automatically in favour of the woman, but the facts and circumstances of the case are to be considered. However, while denying such benefit, the Court is required to give specific reasons as to why the benefit be denied.
In the present case, the facts essentially are in pari materia, the Applicant is the daughter of Anubrata Mondal and the allegations essentially against her are that she had used her Company/Firm accounts to launder the money, proceeds of crime which was received by her father - As has been observed in the case of Saumya Chaurasia [2023 (12) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT], the Applicant may be an educated woman having her business and commercial enterprise, but it cannot be overlooked that the allegations against her are essentially in the context of her father and that she in her commercial ventures, has laundered the money received by her father as a bribe.
Looking at the number of pages in the Chargesheet which were voluminous, and some were in Bengali which were required to be translated, Sh. Anubrata Mondal was admitted to bail. In the present case, the Applicant is in judicial custody from 26.04.2023. As has been observed in the context of this case itself while deciding bail of Anubrata Mondal the documents involved are voluminous and the trial may take a long time to get concluded. Furthermore, the Applicant is a woman who is entitled to bail under Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, 2002.
The Applicant is admitted to regular bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 704
Seeking grant of Regular bail - money laundering - involvement in conspiracy - proceeds of crime - benefit of Proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA sought on the ground of being “sick” and “infirm" - HELD THAT:- There is ample evidence to link the Accused to the commission of the offence of Money Laundering, and his release on Bail would adversely affect further investigation to trace remaining proceeds of crime especially in light of the nature of the case, severity of allegations and voluminous evidence on record. Certain facts are in the personal knowledge of the Applicant which the Investigation Agency is yet to unearth and there exists all likelihood of the accused tampering the evidence of the case, if released on Bail. There is also a likelihood of him evading the process of law, the possibilities of which cannot be ruled out. While personal liberty is of paramount importance, the same is not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions, including the interest of the State and public.
Reference has been made to Vijay Madanlal Choudharv & Ors [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] wherein while considering the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, the Apex Court observed that the twin conditions are valid being reasonable on having correct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act to combat the menace of money-laundering having transnational consequences including impacting the financial systems and sovereignty and integrity of the country.
It is asserted that the investigations against the Applicant are complete and the prosecution Complaint has also been filed. The IO and the ED have taken all steps to expedite the trial and has been proactive in complying with the directions of the Court. The Directorate of Enforcement as per the established law, is not required to give the list of un-relied documents to the accused persons before the stage of trial and thus, had challenged the Order of the Trial Court dated 05.01.2023 wherein it was directed to only provide the list of un-relied documents.
In regard to the medical ground for Bail, it is stated that it is only on the exceptional sickness that Bail can be exercised and that too in sparing and cautious manner; any and every nature of sickness does not entitle an accused to be released on Bail. in a recent decision pertaining to interim medical bail in a PMLA case, this Court has accepted the principle that if the condition of the accused is not so serious or life threatening, he cannot be enlarged on medical bail.
The basic argument on behalf of the applicant is that there is no prima facie case against him. There is no role of the applicant in framing or implementing the Excise Policy. The applicant has detailed that various meetings were held between the South Group and the AAP from March to July, 2021 at various locations in Delhi and Hyderabad and to none of those was he a party - The applicant also had given his comments only because he had been in this business for long and had huge experience. He merely gave his comments as a stakeholder and had not been in any way influenced the Policy. He has also sought to explain that the claim that he was getting kickbacks from the profits to be earned, is also not tenable as his profit margin was only 1 percent as has been explained in detail. The applicant has further explained that though there are allegations made against him of destruction of evidence, but it is in regard to three mobile phones which he had to change because these mobile phones were seized by the CBI during the raids making it imperative for him to switch to the new mobiles.
Taking a prima facie view of the roll as defined of the applicant in the case, it can be observed that the twin test of guilt for the offence of money laundering or likely to commit any offence are weak.
It may also be observed that the antecedents of the Applicant, who has no previous involvement, it cannot be said that he is of flight risk or is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses since most of the evidence is essentially documentary in nature.
The applicant is directed to be released forthwith on bail in connection with the ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement subject to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court - the Bail Application is allowed and Sameer Mahandru is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 703
Seeking direction to constitute a fresh bench for hearing the O.A by an independent body and before an impartial forum - fundamental contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been constituted against the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Legislature, acting upon the observations and recommendations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association (which duly considered R. Gandhi) [2020 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], L. Chandrakumar [1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] has enacted a new law which currently governs tribunals, including the Appellate Tribunal set up under PMLA, 2002.
Similarly, in the case of Alok Industries Ltd. [2022 (6) TMI 1499 - DELHI HIGH COURT],the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was that "steps shall be taken for filling up the vacant posts ... on an expeditious basis and in any case, within a period of four months from today." Notably, the said case was decided by the same single-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which later decided Gold Croft Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 1070 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
It is a well-established and indisputable proposition that orders passed by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should be speaking orders which provide the detailed reasoning for the decisions. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the requirement of passing a reasoned order has been violated by the Ld. AA while disposing of the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the appellant before it. It has duly provided its reasons, albeit very succinctly.
It can be seen that the Ld. AA has given its reasons while disposing of the Miscellaneous Application. The appellant's grievance appears to be that the Ld. Authority did not address the underlying issue in the Miscellaneous Application which was regarding potential conflict of interest involved in cases generated by the Department of Revenue being adjudicated upon by a body within the same Department.
It is noteworthy that the learned the Adjudicating Authority works under a tight time-frame. It has to pass its order within 180 days, otherwise the order of provisional attachment passed under Section 5 will cease to have effect and the property under attachment shall stand released by operation of law. The Ld. AA, therefore, does not have the luxury of unlimited time to deal with an OA/OC referred to it. The appellant is well-aware of this fact. Indeed, this very fact appears to be the main motivation behind the appellant in the present case filing a series of Miscellaneous Applications (as many as five)before the Ld. Authority when it is preoccupied with adjudication proceedings under Section 8 of the Act - Appeal dismissed.
Prayer that the Ld. AA may be pleased to stay in the proceeding in the matter till such time the coram of the Adjudicating Authority as stipulated under Section 6 (7) of PMLA, 2002 is functional - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its order dated 18.01.2023 in Abbeys Realcon merely noted the matter before them requires consideration and requested the Ld. Addl. Solicitor General to assist the court. In doing so, it did not lay down any binding precedent - Similarly, the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court in Easter Institute of Integrated Learning [2015 (9) TMI 1573 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT] observed that "in a case where serious questions of law and fact arise, as in the present case, it is essential that one of the Members of the Bench constituted under Clause (b) of Sub-section 6 of PMLA by the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority should be a Judicial Member." [emphasis supplied]. As is evident from the very observation of the Hon'ble High Court, no ratio was laid down in the said case that a Judicial Member must invariably be present and the absence of Judicial Member would as a rule render a decision of the Adjudicating Authority illegal. The decisions of this Appellate Tribunal relied upon by the appellant also do not support him. Moreover, the same would in any case not constitute good precedent anymore in view of subsequent judgments of various High Courts - Appeal dismissed.
Seeking supply of 'reasons to believe' as recorded by the concerned officer of the Directorate under Section 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Section 17 provides that for the purpose of search and seizure, the Directors or other Officers not below the rank of Deputy Director may proceed for search and seizure based on the information in his possession and has reasons to believe that any person has committed any Act which constitute money laundering and is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money laundering etc., the Authorised Officer may enter and search the building, place, vessel, vehicle etc. and thereupon take further action as given under Section 17(1) of the Act which includes seizure of records and property. However, it would remain in operation only for a period of thirty days unless the officer file an application requesting retention of such records and property before the Adjudicating Authority and at this stage the Adjudicating Authority would serve a show cause notice alongwith the reasons to believe to the parties effected by it.
The Adjudicating Authority would supply complete material to the parties concern to seek their response to show cause notice where the reasons to believe recorded by the Adjudicating Authority are also supplied thus the stage prior to the initiation of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 is administrative in nature and the parties are not affected indefinitely unless the order is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority but before confirmation, an opportunity of hearing is provided after disclosure of material and reasons to believe.
The reasons to believe recorded under Section 17 were not required to be provided to the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
All the appeals are dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 621
Seeking grant of regular bail - allegation is that petitioner has been actively involved in layering of illegal proceeds of crime - evidence against the petitioner is the various hawala transactions which have been established and corroborated by the statements of various hawala operators/Angadias in their statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 - twin test as laid in Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- It may be observed in the context of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 that the prosecution has filed one main Prosecution Complaint on 26.11.2022 and thereafter, five Supplementary Prosecution Complaints in none of which the petitioner had been cited as an accused. It is the 6th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint in which the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. The petitioner has filed a flowchart in the bail Application wherein it has explained how the conspiracy started at the first level and trickled down to the seventh level where the petitioner has featured.
At this stage, the only allegation is that the petitioner received Rs.45 Crores, which were part of the proceeds of the crime and had been placed, layered, and integrated by him in the expenditure incurred in the various events organized during the Goa Campaign for AAP Party. The statement of the Angadiyas and others persons, are required to be proved through cogent evidence during the trial that this particular Rs.45 Crores, which is being utilized by the petitioner, were in fact the part of the proceeds of crime and this fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner.
The petitioner has sought to explain Rs.12 lakhs, which were recovered from his account by stating that he had been doing odd jobs and working and this Rs.12 lakhs were part of his earnings. Furthermore, it has been explained by him that he was a freelancer working for the political parties like BJP, TMC etc., in the past. Looking at his nature of work of a free lancer for various political parties which he has been doing in the past, merely because he spent certain amount the source of which is not certain, for the campaigning events in the election of Goa, it cannot be said that there is a strong case against the petitioner.
The twin conditions as provided in Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are primarily satisfied. Even if it is held that these conditions are not met by the petitioner, the jurisprudence for grant of bail is that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 especially when there is a prospect of long incarceration without the conclusion of the trial.
In the present case, the petitioner is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing trial. Regardless, conditions can be imposed to ensure the petitioner’s attendance to face the trial.
The petitioner Chanpreet Singh Rayat is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 555
Money Laundering - Seeking to withdraw/recall of Look-Out-Circular (LOC) - scheduled offences - violation of the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement executed between the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP) - HELD THAT:- The circumstances in which the Look Out Notice can be opened has been explained in the decision of this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan [2010 (8) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It was observed that “Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal Laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest”.
In the present case, none of the circumstances are made out. Though it has been insisted that the LOC was issued to secure presence of the Petitioner and that he is at flight risk and would evade trial, however, it is evident that the Petitioner has been duly cooperating with the Investigating Agency by furnishing the requisite documents and by responding to queries raised by the Respondent No. 1/ED. It is also recorded in Order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Apex Court that he has appeared more than 14 times before the ED.
Notably, the Apex Court has already granted Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner vide Order dated 05.09.2022, with the directions that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioner. The Anticipatory Bail order also obliges the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating agency.
Given these facts, that petitioner has joined investigations, is not evading the process of law and there is no likelihood of the petitioner leaving the country to evade trial; none of the grounds for continuing the LOC continue to exist. The Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner is hereby quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 508
Seeking quashing of the Summons and seeking further direction against the Respondent not to issue any Summons under Section 50 of PMLA to the Appellants for their appearance in New Delhi - illegal excavation and theft of Coal taking place in the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) - offences under Section 120B and 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The dispensation regarding Prevention of Money Laundering, Attachment of Proceeds of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of offence of Money Laundering including issuing summons, recording of statements, calling upon persons for production of documents etc. upto filing of the Complaint in respect of offence under Section 3 of PMLA is fully governed by the provisions of the said Act itself. The jurisdictional police who is governed by the regime of Chapter XII of the Code, can not register the offence of money laundering, nor can investigate into it, in view of the special procedure prescribed under the PMLA with regard to the registration of offence and inquiry/investigation thereof, and that the special procedure must prevail in terms of Section 71 of the PMLA.
The ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] clinches the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the appellants with regard to the provisions of Section 50 being violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, and it is not required to further elaborate the same, nor it is needed to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not “testimonial compulsion”.
There are no substance in the challenge made by the Appellants to the Summons issued to the Appellants under Section 50 of the PMLA. As contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorized agents as the officer may direct and are bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and to produce the documents as may be required. As per sub-section (4) thereof every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the IPC. As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC.
Both the Appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 466
Seeking quashment of FIR - powers of the authorities to summon - Jurisdiction of the respondents from invoking any provision of PMLA against the petitioner.
HELD THAT:- The offence has not been wiped off in entirety in respect of the scheduled offence. The hands of the competent authority under the PMLA cannot be tied. In the event of considering the relief as such sought for in the present Writ Petition, the very objectives of the PMLA will be defeated.
The statutory powers conferred on the competent authorities under the PMLA cannot be curtailed or the petitioner is entitled to seek any order in the nature of an injunction restraining the authorities from issuing summon/notice for the purpose of conducting enquiry or to investigate the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. Mere quashment of the F.I.R in respect of the petitioner alone in predicate offence would not wipe off the offence of money laundering and still the authorities are empowered to conduct further investigation, if required, or to trace out proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The very objective of the PMLA to prevent money laundering and to provide power for confiscation of property cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the authorities from summoning any person under the PMLA. Such an omnibus direction if issued would undoubtedly defeat the very purpose and objective of the PMLA.
The present Writ Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the victims have received money and filed affidavits stating that they have received the money paid by them to the accused or to the institution. Based on the affidavit, the High Court quashed the proceedings in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Mere repayment of money involved in a crime would not wash away the offence of money laundering under the PMLA, if any committed - The authority of Law conferred under the PMLA to the competent authorities cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.
There are no reasons to consider the relief as such sought for in the Writ Petition since such prayer is not entertainable in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 321
Money Laundering - Rejection of Bail of Vijay Nair who is a co-accused in Delhi Excise policy scam - allegation is that the petitioner acted as a middleman and was involved in irregularities in framing and implementing the Delhi Excise policy - fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 - HELD THAT:- In a recent judgment of this Court, in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT], the Court reiterated that fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 cannot be arbitrarily subjugated to the statutory bar in Section 45 of the Act.
Here the accused is lodged in jail for a considerable period and there is little possibility of trial reaching finality in the near future. The liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution does not get abrogated even for special statutes where the threshold twin bar is provided and such statutes, cannot carve out an exception to the principle of bail being the rule and jail being the exception. The cardinal principle of bail being the rule and jail being the exception will be entirely defeated if the petitioner is kept in custody as an under-trial for such a long duration. This is particularly glaring since in the event of conviction, the maximum sentence prescribed is only 7 years for the offence of money laundering.
The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith on bail in connection with the ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in each of the cases - the petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses - petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 320
Money Laundering - Proceeds of crime - Invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and jurisdiction of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of ECIR based on quashed/closed FIRs - HELD THAT:- It is evident that Section 3 of PMLA 2002 Act defines the offence of money laundering and it is not narrowly focused. The proceeds of crime is a pivotal ingredient constituting the offence of money laundering. Section 3 of the 2002 Act has been explained elaborately in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]. It is evident that the definition of the offence of ‘money laundering’ is wide and expansive. It makes liable not only the person who directly or indirectly indulges with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property, but even the person who knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected shall also be liable. Explanation (i) further explains the position.
Explanation (ii) to Section 3 of the 2002 Act provides that the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and it continues till the time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime. While defining the expression ‘proceeds of crime’, it has been provided that any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to the said property shall constitute the proceeds of crime. Where the property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad shall be included in such proceeds. In the explanation attached to the definition, it has been added that if the property is directly or indirectly derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity related to the scheduled offence, the same shall also be included in the proceeds of crime.
According to Explanation II to Section 44 of the 2002 Act, any subsequent complaint should be incorporated into the pending complaint for further investigation to gather additional evidence against any accused, as reflected in the statutory language. The legislative intent in cases involving multiple FIRs is thus quite clear. Consequently, it can be concluded that even if all FIRs except one have been resolved through compromise or other means, the investigation under the same ECIR will continue.
Though, the ECIR is not an FIR, however, the ED is an Investigating Agency that has been constituted to investigate the various offences including the offence of money laundering. In these circumstances, after the filing of ECIR in the year 2022, the ED continued to investigate.
This Bench does not find substance in the present writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 247
Money laundering - procceds of crime - First bail application filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C - rejection of Remdesivir Injections at a higher price - offence under section 420, 488, 304, 308, 467, 468, 471, of IPC and 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act - It was held by High Court that 'Considering the money trail produced by the prosecution, which clearly proves involvement of the applicant in the present case, in which proceeds of crime is Rs.2,89,00,000/-, this court is of the view that in view of the rigor of section 45 of the Act, 2002, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail'.
HELD THAT:- The case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of TARSEM LAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE [2024 (5) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'after cognizance of the complaint under 44(1)(b) of the PMLA is taken by the Court, the ED and other authorities named in Section 19 are powerless to arrest an accused named in the complaint. Hence, in such a case, an apprehension that the ED will arrest such an accused by exercising powers under Section 19 can never exist.'
Hence, the interim order dated 13th May, 2024 is made absolute on the said terms and conditions.
-
2024 (9) TMI 246
Dismissal of petition under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code for discharge - allegations in the complaint under PMLA constitute the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA or not - prosecution of share holders of the company in the absence of any specific evidence to hold their involvement in the commission of crime - HELD THAT:- Carving out a line between the material evidences available in the complaint and the grounds taken by the accused persons, seeking discharge, are to be considered with reference to the objectives of the PMLA. The scope of Section 3 of PMLA cannot be narrowed down so as to grant exoneration from the proceedings merely on the ground that a person is not directly connected with the affairs of a company. Section 3 of PMLA unambiguously stipulates that whosoever indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party, are also guilty of offence of money laundering. Mere concealment or possession or use, would be sufficient to prosecute a person under Section 3 of PMLA. The connecting material evidences would be sufficient for the purpose of allowing the trial to go on. It is not necessary that there must be a direct link between the accused and the offence of money laundering. Indirect involvement and the connecting link, if established, would be sufficient for the purpose of prosecuting the person and therefore, discharge under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code in respect of PMLA cases cannot be granted akin to that of the criminal cases registered under the general penal laws.
Whether any material evidences are available in the complaint against the petitioner for considering the present Revision Case? - HELD THAT:- In the context of material evidences available in the complaint, the Trial Court in Paragraph No.10 has observed that whether the consent of the petitioner/A-16 as a major shareholder was obtained by the Board of Directors in any special resolution passed by SIHL to borrow money from the IDBI Bank or to offer collateral security for the loan as required under Section 180(1)(c) and 180(2) of Companies Act, 2013, are to be proved in the trial.
Section 70 of PMLA cannot be read in isolation in view of the spirit of Section 3 of PMLA. Section 3 of PMLA, if to be implemented effectively, then Section 70 of PMLA, as enumerated under the Act, is to be scrupulously followed. Therefore, a general principle that shareholder is not liable for prosecution under general penal law cannot have any implication with reference to a shareholder against whom a prosecution is launched under PMLA. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly was holding 86% shares of the company. Her then husband is also an accused.
Therefore, it is for the affected persons to prove that the money laundering has been made without the knowledge of such person seeking exoneration and not merely on the ground that such person is a shareholder of the company. Whether the person is a Director, Shareholder or holding an Executive post in a company, but if the material evidences are available to implicate any person who is connected with the company, then it constitutes an offence under Section 3 of PMLA and under proviso clause to Section 70 of PMLA and it is for such person to establish that he/she had no knowledge about such money laundering during the course of trial.
In view of the fact that the complaint contains material evidences for prosecution, the petitioner has to prove her innocence by undergoing the trial - conclusion reached is that the case on hand is not fit to grant discharge from proceedings under PMLA.
There are no infirmity in respect of the findings made in the order impugned - the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
