|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 2027 Records
-
2024 (9) TMI 183
Application for regular bail filed by applicant Gurupada Maji S/o Late Sh. Narayan Maji, through his pairokar under Sections 45 and 46 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. - illegal excavation and theft of coal from leasehold area of Eastern Coalfield Limited (ECL) - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA, at the same time recognizing that though the provision restricts the right of the accused to grant of bail but the conditions do not impose an absolute restraint on the grant of bail and the discretion vests in the Court, which has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The twin conditions in Section 45 of PMLA have been subject matter of extensive judicial scrutiny.
PMLA is an enactment aimed at combating the menace of money laundering which has far reaching implications on the economic stability of the country. Gravity of economic offences and need for a differential approach in matters of bail was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT], where the Supreme Court observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be approached with a different perspective even while considering a bail application.
The Supreme Court in Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2009 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT], observed that while deciding the bail application, Courts must strike a balance between the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the larger interest of the society. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been interpreted expansively by the Supreme Court to encompass a panoply of rights including the right of an accused to speedy trial.
Despite the stringent requirements under Section 45 of PMLA for grant of bail, the twin conditions therein do not create an absolute restraint or embargo or an insurmountable barrier in the way of the Court to grant bail on grounds of delay in completion of trial and long incarceration, which in this case is for a period of 27 months and 03 days. Maintaining a delicate balance between the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the need to combat economic offences and seeing with the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in my view, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail keeping in view the incarceration of nearly 28 months and there being no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.
On the aspect of the applicant being a flight risk albeit there was no serious opposition, yet this apprehension of the prosecution can be allayed by imposing stringent bail conditions. It is to be noted that on being granted bail by the Special Court in the predicate offence, applicant complied with all the bail conditions and joined the investigation as and when called for. It is also a matter of record that the investigation in the present matter qua the applicant is complete. Case of the ED is primarily based on documentary evidence and the relevant records/documents have been seized and are in custody of investigating agencies and thus cannot be tampered. ED has not argued that there is any possibility of intimidating the witnesses.
The application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and further subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 119
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - proceeds of crime - large scale illegal mining - HELD THAT:- It is found that the connection between these First Information Reports pleaded in paragraph 1 of the first and the second complaints and the alleged proceeds of crime has not been pleaded. In the first complaint, in paragraph 3.4 there is a reference to several offences registered at different places. However, there is no prima facie material to show that the offences pleaded, directly or indirectly, generated proceeds of crime in the form of money or illegally mined minerals.
There are, no doubt, allegations of large scale illegal mining against the accused, but that is not sufficient. Prima facie, there must be factual assertions in the complaints to show that the offences which are named as scheduled offences on the basis of which complaints are filed, directly or indirectly, generated proceeds of crime. It is also noted that the first offence mentioned in both the complaints is not a predicate offence at all, as apart from Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, no other scheduled offence is mentioned in the First Information Report.
There are reasonable grounds for believing that the complaints do not indicate that the appellants are guilty of offence of money-laundering. It is noted here that nothing is pleaded to show that the appellants are involved in any other offence of money-laundering under the PMLA. Allegation of tampering with the evidence have not been made. Both the appellants have undergone incarceration for a period of about 01 year approximately.
Therefore, a case is made out for enlarging the appellants on bail - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 118
Retention of seized documents/properties in terms of Section 17(4) of PMLA - Misuse of loans - seizure has arisen in the present case out of the investigations, which were initiated against the investments made from the provident funds maintained by UPPCL Trusts,as Fixed Deposits with DHFL,contrary to the standing instructions and decisions - HELD THAT:- The Respondent Directorate largely on the basis of the statements of Shri RajendraMirashie of DHFL examined the loans disbursed by DHFL out of the common pool of funds. Shri Mirashie during tendering of his statements furnished list of borrowers, who were either controlled by DHFL/Wadhawan family or where the loans had turned into NPA leading to inference that these were siphoned off. In the course of such investigation the Appellant Companies of SGS Group were identified as beneficiary of loan disbursed by DHFL and suspected to have siphoned off such loans.
The seizure of Rs.33,00,000/- has been made from the search conducted of the residential premises of Gulati family on 13.08.2021. The source of the seized amount has been explained as withdrawals from the personal accounts of S/Shri Subhash Gulati &Sankalp Gulati on 28.09.2020 for medical exigencies. The account numbers from which the cash withdrawals of Rs.20,00,000/- was made by each of the two persons has been specified. The Branch and the Bank where these accounts were held have also been stated. It cannot be denied that the date of withdrawal was during the COVID-19 period. The concerned bank viz. the Indian Overseas Bank has issued Certificates certifying the veracity of such withdrawals - The argument of the respondent is that in the modern era of online banking the explanation of withdrawal for medical exigency seems far-fetched. It is observed that the rejection of the explanation on this ground cannot be accepted because the possibility of cash transactions during emergency situations cannot be ruled out.
The respondent has failed to demonstrate either from the documents or from the digital record seized by them on 13.08.2021 the link with the suspected Proceeds of Crime. Since admittedly these have been recovered from the premises of the appellant whose nexus with respect to receipt of Proceeds of Crime has not been established as is obvious from the analysis of evidence arising from the records before us, there does not appear to be any basis for sustaining the seizure.
The Impugned Order is set aside qua the Appellant and therefore, the Appeal is accordingly, allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 67
Money Laundering - attachment of the properties - appellant has raised only one ground to press the appeal that the property was acquired in 1998 i.e., much prior to the date of commission of offence, cannot be attached - HELD THAT:- The contention of appellant in this regard cannot be agreed upon - The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] held that the other assets of the culprit can be attached, as value thereof, in absence of non- availability of direct proceeds of crime.
The property of appellant is rightly confirmed for attachment by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order, in absence of any direct proceeds of crime in possession of the appellant, as she received the share from the proceeds of crime along with her other family members as mentioned in the flow chart at page 41 of the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the said legal position the present appeal needs to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 66
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment of property - proceeds of crime - impleaded of proprietor as the necessary party - HELD THAT:- The bank accounts of proprietorship concerns, namely, M/s Garg Wollen Mills and M/s B L Yarn in Axis Bank containing sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 1,15,000/- are rightly attached by respondent ED which are confirmed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in view of the fact that sum of Rs. 2,84,982/- were received by appellant Jagmohan Garg in his bank account through M/s JaldharaCotspin Pvt Ltd. As per the case of respondent ED, Ramesh Mehan, Prop. of proprietorship concern M/s Yourke International, committed the fraud of VAT refund to the tune of Rs. 74,36,067/-, on the basis of forged documents. Out of the said proceeds of crime, M/s Shreya International received the proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs. 70,50,000/-. Thereafter, out of the said share of proceeds of crime M/s Shreyas International transferred sum of Rs. 44,00,056/-,to M/s JaldharaCotspin Pvt Ltd. Ludhiana. Thereafter, the said company from the said share of proceeds of crime transferred sum of Rs. 2,84,982/- in the account of the present appellant and the remaining amount into the accounts of other defendants.
The second contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is also devoid of any merits as proprietorship concern is not a legal person in the eyes of law and hence, Jagmohan Garg being proprietor is rightly impleaded as the necessary party in the Original Complaint No. 922/2018. Therefore, the present appeal needs to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
The present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits and thereby the impugned order dated 13.09.2018 confirming PAO No. 02/2018 is hereby upheld - Appeal Dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1541
Money Laundering - cancellation of bail facility allegedly granted by the trial court to the applicants/accused - conspiracy and opening of 386 bank accounts in Syndicate Bank, by misusing the identity documents of various persons - Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In the decision of Tarsem Lal [2024 (5) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the legal provision enunciated in the earlier decision Pankaj Jain vs Union of India and others [2018 (2) TMI 1943 - SUPREME COURT], has held that where a non-bailable arrest warrant has been issued for the presence of the wanted accused while taking action under Section 82-83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to his absence, then in such cases such accused is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a right, but in the present case, the investigating officer has taken a conscious decision not to arrest all the accused during the investigation, there is no such situation where the accused are evading their arrest or are absconding. According to Section 19 of the 'Act 2002', arrest is possible only on proper and strong grounds.
It is clear from the guiding decision of Tarsem Lal and the subsequent orders passed that where the option of not arresting the accused has been exercised by the investigating officer by using the provisions of section 19 “Act 2002”, then in such a situation, after the presentation of the complaint, the provisions of section 200-205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable. Since the accused is not in custody, the question of release on bail does not arise and the provisions of section 45 “Act 2002” are not attracted in any way. If seen on the touchstone of the above legal system, the order passed by the trial court to execute a bond for the regular presence of the accused during the trial does not fall in the category of bail order, hence in such a situation the provisions of section 437, 439 and 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted.
The Enforcement Directorate has taken a conscious decision not to arrest the present accused, after which their strict attitude is completely opposite at present. Their undue leniency at one time and then adopting a very strict approach towards the accused, arresting some accused related to the same charge and opposing their bail application and deciding not to arrest some including the main accused, this functioning of the Enforcement Directorate cannot be considered fair, whereas in such cases, they are expected to perform their work impartially with full responsibility as per the legal provisions. On the basis of the above-referenced decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.07.2024 in the case of accused Himansh alias Himanshu Verma [2024 (7) TMI 1610 - SC ORDER], the Enforcement Directorate is definitely required to introspect and introspect on its functioning. Therefore, the office is directed to send a copy of it to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi by speed post and email to bring it to his notice.
Conclusion - The challenged orders have been passed by the trial court under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are completely in accordance with the facts and law, there is no justification for any interference in them. The present application filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be dismissed.
Application dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1494
Money Laundering - disproportionate wealth in the predicate offence - seeking relief to discharge the accused from the offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Applicability of principles of double jeopardy - HELD THAT:- The scope of PMLA is independent and cannot be compared with the dealing of offences under other enactments including Prevention of Corruption Act. The very purpose and object of PMLA is to deal with economic offences. Therefore, the provisions are stand alone and the Enforcement Directorate is conferred with the powers to prosecute the persons under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The principles of double jeopardy has no application. The other grounds raised by the petitioner are connected with the merits of the case. Section 24 of the Act provides burden of proof and it lies on the affected persons. Therefore, the petitioner has to establish their innocence during the course of trial through documents and evidences available on record. Grounds touching upon the merits cannot be adjudicated in a discharge petition. The probate value of the evidences cannot be considered while dealing with the discharge petition by the Courts. Any such adjudication would cause prejudice to the interest of either of the parties and result in miscarriage of justice. All such grounds are to be considered during the course of trial elaborately.
Prima facie, there are no reason to interfere with the order impugned, since the respondent could able to establish that there is a prima facie case to invoke the provisions of PMLA and rightly they have done it. It is for the parties to establish their respective case before the trial court in the manner known to law.
The order impugned dated 16.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.7727 of 2022 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2022 stands confirmed - Consequently, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1473
Money Laundering - refusal to release certain properties that according to the petitioners were acquired by her father-in-law before the occurrence of the crime, initiation of the proceedings in respect of the predicate offence and the subsequent proceedings under PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled in law that the exception to the principle of alternative remedy for approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are inter alia, the jurisdictional error, violation of the statutory provision and the statutory remedy being not truly efficacious or alternative. The principles are now far too well settled.
It is however equally well settled that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary. The Single Bench appears to be of the view that the petitioner has an opportunity to explain to the adjudicating authority as to why the property in question should not be attached. He may do so. From that point of view, the order of Single Bench, cannot be deemed as illegal or contrary to law.
The impugned order therefore, does not call for interference - Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1470
Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - applicability of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT:- The assessment that the applicant requires regular physiotherapy cannot be questioned. However, the prayer for bail on the count that the applicant requires assistance for his daily routine activities cannot be considered, discounting the extensive period for which the applicant has been provided treatment, as an indoor patient, at the Lilavati Hospital and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals. In the light of the condition of health of the applicant on other parameters, namely, cardiac, nephrology and ophthalmology, the applicant seems to be relatively stable. What the applicant now requires is diabetes management and physiotherapy.
Thus, the assessment that the applicant requires assistance for his daily activities cannot be appreciated in isolation. An appropriate direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Mumbai, to provide the requisite assistance, whenever necessary, would meet the exigency of the situation. The concern expressed on behalf of the applicant that on account of logistical issues it may not be practicable to take the applicant to Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals for treatment regularly can also be addressed by issuing appropriate directions.
The requirement of assistance either in the form of physical aids like wheelchair or walker, or human support, cannot be construed to be such an infirmity as to warrant the release on bail by invoking the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. To put in another words, there is not much qualitative difference in the condition of health of the applicant today and as it obtained when the first application was rejected. On the contrary, an inference may be justifiable that the health condition of the applicant has improved with treatment as an indoor patient for almost four months.
It is not required to release the applicant on bail on medical ground. However, it is deemed appropriate to issue certain directions to ensure proper assistance and treatment to the applicant - bail application dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1412
Seeking grant of regular bail - money laundering - Scheduled Offence - Admissibility of statements - Scope of Inquiry under Section 45 of PMLA -reasonable grounds for believing - foundational facts-under Section 24 PMLA - Admissibility of the Statement of the Appellant - when a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in this case the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50?
HELD THAT:- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] though held that the authorities under the PMLA are not police officers, did anticipate a scenario where in a given case, the protection of Section 25 of the Evidence Act may have to be made available to the accused. The Court observed that such situations will have to be examined on a case-to-case basis.
This Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary anticipated the myriad situations that may arise in the recording of the Section 50 statement and discussed the parameters for dealing with them. In Rajaram Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar [1963 (4) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT], a judgment quoted in extenso in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, this Court observed that the expression "police officer " in Section 25 of the Evidence Act is not confined to persons who are members of the regularly constituted police force.
In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency. Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant.
There are no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice.
Since the words ‘procedure established by law’ occurring in Article 21 has to be a reasonable and valid procedure, the statement of the appellant under Section 50 cannot be read upon in ECIR No. 5 of 2023 even though the appellant was at that point in custody in ECIR No. 4 of 2022.
Misuse of Jail facilities by the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Elaborate contentions have been made on the conduct of the appellant about certain facilities having been extended to him in jail. It is not rrequired to comment on them and if at all there is any violation of the prison Rules, the Investigating Agency ought to take up with the higher officials of the Jail. On the facts of the present case, they are not reasons enough to deny the appellant his liberty.
The judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi is set aside - the Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1411
Refusal to grant bail to the appellant (woman) - Applicability of proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for women - appellant indulged herself into tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA to be satisfied. No doubt that, as argued by the learned ASG, in a given case the accused even if a woman may not be automatically entitled to benefit of the said proviso and it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied.
The learned Single Judge in the present case, while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, comes to a “heartening conclusion” that the appellant is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellant has made significant contributions to politics and social work. The learned Single Judge further observed that while deciding her bail application, the Court may appreciate her accomplishment, however, it cannot lose sight of the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and presented before the Court.
The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeds to observe that the present appellant cannot be equated to a “vulnerable woman” - the learned Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”.
A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia [2023 (12) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT] would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi are quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1410
Grant of regular bail - third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Money laundering - scheduled offences - illegal extortion on Coal Transportation - applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 - offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- From bare perusal of ECIR as well as observation made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of the present applicant wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while rejecting the bail of the applicant has recorded its finding that there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the applicant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the applicant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 should be granted to the applicant who is a lady.
The order-sheet of the case would demonstrate that the trial could not be proceeded on the count that other accused are not available or various applications were filed by different accused to delay the trial. The order-sheet further reflects that despite the directions issued by the trial Court seeking presence of the accused, the accused have not appeared before the trial Court causing delay in trial, therefore, various steps have been initiated for seeking their presence - the other accused are not seeking their presence before the trial Court, therefore, the trial has not begun, as such it cannot be said that the trial is being delayed without any rhyme and reason. Therefore, the submission made by learned senior counsel for the applicant that there is delay in trial, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released in bail, deserves to be rejected.
In the present case, considering that the applicant has remained only 1 year & 8 months, the accused are not cooperating with the trial and the applicant has not fulfilled the twin conditions for grant of bail under the PMLA, 2002 - the third bail application filed by the present applicant also deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected - Application dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1216
Provisional attachment of properties under Section 5 of the PMLA Act - seeking release if attached property - third party rights/interests - HELD THAT:- The order in appeal dated 24th December, 2019 clearly protects the Appellant, insofar as attachment is concerned. No third-party rights and/or interests can be created in respect of all seven properties by the Respondent.
The direction for restoring the possession of the properties cannot be faulted with on merits. Moreover, even the order dated 24th December, 2019 directed that the Appellant/Department was restrained from taking the possession of the properties. The stand of the Appellant is that notices were issued on 18th December, 2019 and 19th December, 2019 and the time period as prescribed in the PMLA Rules were adhered to. These issues would have to be now resolved in the Appellate Tribunal.
The possession of all the seven properties shall now remain with the Respondent subject to the order of attachment in terms of paragraph 19 of the impugned order dated 17th January, 2020.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1215
Seeking recall of the Judgment - petition has been dismissed without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and without dealing with the submissions made in the written submissions which were placed on record - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the decision of the Apex Court in VIJAY BHATIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2023 (5) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT] has deprecated the practice of filing Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 50 of the Act despite its validity having been decided in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT].
It is observed that before concluding, that the prayer made in both the Writ Petitions was to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. It paragraph 84 of the impugned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI wherein the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA. Therefore, the relief sought may have existed at the time when the petition was filed in 2019, but with the findings of the Apex Court as mentioned above, the relief stood answered and satisfied.
It is concluded that there were only typographical errors in the impugned Order which hereby stand rectified. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1108
Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - misappropriation of funds of JKCA with criminal conspiracy with other accused persons.
Registration of an FIR/case for a scheduled offence is a condition precedent for the registration of a case for money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA or not - Enforcement Directorate can independently determine the commission of scheduled offences based on the charge-sheet filed by another investigating agency or not.
HELD THAT:- The offence of money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of PMLA, is not made out. For commission of offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, it is required to be demonstrated that the accused has directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such activity could be concealment possession, acquisition or use of the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property.
“Proceeds of crime” is defined in Section 2 (1) (u) clearly means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Coming to the charge-sheet presented by the CBI before the CJM, Srinagar, no scheduled offence is disclosed to have been committed. From a plain reading of Section 3 PMLA, it appears that offence under Section 3 PMLA can only be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. It is, thus, trite that commission of a scheduled offence is sine qua non for existence of proceeds of crime and commission of offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA Act.
In the instant case, indisputably, the jurisdictional police, the CBI has not registered any case for commission of any scheduled offence. Enquiry by way of complaint before the CJM, Srinagar is also not in respect of any scheduled offence. In the absence of there being any case registered for commission of scheduled offence or any case pending enquiry or trial in respect of scheduled offence, authorities under PMLA have no jurisdiction to register ECIR and launch prosecution for offence of money laundering under Sections 3/4 of PMLA. When there is no scheduled offence having been registered or pending enquiry or trial, there are no proceeds of crime and, thus, there is no offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.
There are merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner and regret my inability to accept the argument of learned Additional Solicitor General of India which he very vehemently projected here.
This petition is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1055
Directing the Petitioner Bank to keep the account frozen of a particular customer - direction to Petitioner Bank to make a demand draft of the frozen amount along with the interest accrued thereon in favour of the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate - HELD THAT:- It is seen from a perusal of Section 8 (3) and 8 (4) of the Act of 2002 that after an order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the provisional order of attachment is confirmed, the Director or any other Officer authorized by him shall forthwith take possession of the property attached under Section 5 or frozen under Sub-Section 1 (A) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 in such manner as may be prescribed.
As the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had expressed their no objection in transferring the amount lying in the account in question and the statutory mandate contained in Section 8 (4) of the Act of 2002, this Court is of the opinion that the direction so given in the communication dated the 12.04.2024 which was received by the Petitioner on 19.04.2024 is required to be complied with.
This Court therefore grants 7 (seven) days time to the Petitioner Bank to comply in terms with the directions so contained in the communication dated 12.04.2024 - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 725
Grant of interim bail - Money Laundering - offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Sections 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT:- This Court prima facie found that the petitioners had made out a case for their enlargement on interim bail. Accordingly, they were directed to be released on interim bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
The petitioners deserve to continue on bail during the pendency of the trial. Consequently, the orders dated 17.05.2024 and 08.07.2024 are made absolute.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2024 (8) TMI 724
Money Laundering - attachment of the properties of the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The order of attachment is not in existence, no purpose will be served by keeping these Petitions pending. The order by which the accused are discharged is subject-matter of challenge in the pending criminal revision petitions before the High Court. If by virtue of the orders which may be passed in the criminal revision petitions, the order of discharge is set aside and the order of attachment is revived, we permit the petitioners to either apply for revival of these Petitions or to challenge the order of attachment substantively.
SLP disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 723
Seeking to recall/modify a part of para 15 of order dated 12.02.2024 - short grievance of the review-petitioners is that while granting liberty to the Directorate of Enforcement to avail two independent remedies, an impression has been created as if this Court has authoritatively held that a complaint at the instance of E.D. is maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
HELD THAT:- Keeping in mind the well settled principle that a Court order causes prejudice to none, we deem it appropriate to modify/clarify para 15 of the order dated 12.02.2024 to the extent that the said order shall not be construed to have held that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the instance of E.D. Whether such a complaint is maintainable or not shall be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion in relation thereto.
The aggrieved party thus shall be at liberty to have recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law - The Review Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2024 (8) TMI 722
Seeking to be released on bail - appellant, Humayun Suleman Merchant, is more than 75 years of age and has already suffered actual incarceration for four years and nine months - HELD THAT:- The appellant, Humayun Suleman Merchant, will be released on bail during the pendency of trial in connection with Supplementary Prosecution for the offence(s) punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
The appellant, Humayun Suleman Merchant, will surrender his passport and will not leave India without the permission of the trial court. In case of non-compliance with the terms and conditions, it will be open to the trial court to cancel the bail . The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
