|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 2042 Records
-
2024 (7) TMI 1171
Money Laundering - criminal conspiracy - taking illegal money to influence a public servant and for exercise of personal influence with public servant and abuse of official position by public servant against accused persons - constitutional vaidity of Section 50 (2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, during the course of investigation by ED, Satish Babu Sana and Pradeep Koneru in their respective statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, admitted having paid crores of rupees to Moin Akhtar Qureshi through his employee Sh. Aditya Sharma for obtaining illegal favor from govt. servant(s) after using his influence. Aditya Sharma was also confronted with the facts and evidences on record, who confirmed the monetary transactions received by him. The same were also found in tandem with the contents of BBM messages retrieved by forensics lab, CERT-In. These amounts were found to be sent for Hawala Transactions through Delhi based Hawala Operators which reflected in the BBM messages of Aditya Sharma and Ex. CBI Director AP Singh.
Satish Babu Sana and Pradeep Koneru have, thus, prima facie committed offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 by directly or indirectly indulging in, knowingly assisting, knowingly a party and actually involved in all or any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property.
The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Section 50 of PMLA, which has already been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Three Judge Bench decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. UOI [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that 'We fail to understand as to how article 20 (3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of sub-section (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that article 20 (3) or for that matter section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established.'
Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners in the case registered by the CBI were arrayed as the witnesses to a case under scheduled offences. However, during the process of investigation, case under the provisions of PMLA has been registered wherein they have been arrayed as accused - The ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal, clearly spells out that it may happen in cases that a person who is witness in offences related to scheduled offences, during his interrogation, may put-forth some material which would indicate his involvement in the commission of offence under PMLA. This Court in a catena of decisions has already held that proceedings under the scheduled offences and PMLA are separate and distinct and have no binding upon each other.
Having regard to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and the fact that the petitioners are involved in the case of money laundering, it is found that proceedings under PMLA have been rightly initiated against them. The petitioners have challenged their summoning, which in our opinion is just and proper to unearth the roots of the money trail - Finding no merit in the averments raised by the petitioners, these petitions and pending applications are accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1170
Validity of provisional attachment order - no notice issued to the petitioner, who was the lawful owner of the property - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- When the records before the Registering Authorities, as well as the Revenue Authorities, reveal that the petitioner herein is the lawful owner of the property, there was a duty cast on the Adjudicating Authority to issue a notice, before confirming the provisional attachment under Section 5 of the Act. In the absence of any such notice, the entire exercise of attaching the petitioner's property, would be in violation of the mandatory requirements of serving the provisional attachment order under Section 5, as well as the prior show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Act, on the petitioner, apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore cannot be legally sustainable.
In the case of R. AMARABALAN VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (CHENNAI ZONE) , JOINT DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (CHENNAI ZONE) , [2022 (4) TMI 1619 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dealt with a similar situation and set aside the attachment over the property therein.
When the petitioner had lawfully purchased the property on 28.11.2018, much before the Provisional Attachment Order dated 29.05.2019 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, the subsequent attachment under Section 5 (1) of the Act and the confirmation under 6 of the Act, without prior notice, cannot be legally sustained.
The impugned impugned Provisional Attachment Order passed by the respondent, which was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1169
Seeking extension of an interim bail which was granted to him by the learned Trial Court - grant of interim bail sought on the ground of medical condition of his wife who was suffering from “acute calculus cholecystitis” in her gall bladder and had been advised to undergo a “laparoscopic cholecystectomy” - main argument of the applicant now is that the applicant has been advised to undergo surgery for his left knee namely “Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Repair Surgery” - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the medical condition of the applicant wherein he has been advised to undergo a surgery of left knee cannot be categorized as “life-threatening situation”, and the surgery which is to be undergone by the applicant is not of such nature which necessitates the applicant's release on interim bail only. For the same, the applicant can be taken to the concerned hospital, for him to undergo the surgery while in custody, as per the scheduled date.
Even during the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant had prayed that in case interim bail is not granted to the applicant, he be allowed to get his surgery performed while being in custody, and learned Special Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement had stated that he had no objection to this prayer made by the applicant.
This Court notes that since the applicant had surrendered on 17.02.2024, after his extension application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2024, the date which was scheduled for the surgery of the applicant i.e. 26.02.2024 has already passed.
Considering the medical condition of the applicant and medical documents filed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present applicant can be allowed to undergo the required surgery while being in custody of the Jail Superintendent. However, a perusal of the documents filed on record also reveals that the date of surgery has not been re-scheduled which was earlier scheduled for 26.02.2024. Thus, the applicant will be at liberty to get the date of the surgery rescheduled and thereafter move a fresh application before this Court for seeking appropriate directions.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1117
Interpretation of statute - Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code - necessity of arrest before filing a complaint - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the question of law raised in this appeal is covered by the dictum of this Court in TARSEM LAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE [2024 (5) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, it has been held that if the accused person is not arrested prior to filing of the complaint, he has to only file a bond under Section 88, Cr.P.C., and, therefore, there is no need for arrest.
The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal stands allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1116
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - fraudulent acquisition of land which was in possession of Ministry of Defence, Government of India - reasons to believe - twin conditions laid down u/s 45 PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The documents seized according to the Enforcement Directorate manifested in a trail designating the role of the petitioner in the illegal acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land situated at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu Road (near Lalu Khatal). It is, therefore, the case of the Enforcement Directorate that the provisions of PMLA, 2002 would apply since the petitioner had derived or obtained property as a result of a scheduled offence and had indulged himself in an activity connected with the said property. The factual aspects of the case would negate the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there has been no schedule offence and, therefore, no case of money laundering is made out.
The involvement of the petitioner as per the prosecuting agency is primarily through the angle of conspiracy though according to the Enforcement Directorate Section 120B was struck off in the formal FIR at the behest of the Police in spite of conspiracy playing a predominant role in the predicate offence which led to institution of Sadar P.S. Case No. 272 of 2023. The prelude to the entire episode culminating in submission of prosecution complaint and supplementary prosecution complaint by the Enforcement Directorate is the recovery of huge quantity of incriminating documents showing forgery, manipulation and tampering of government records and mutilation of government revenue records.
Reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- The statement u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 is admissible in evidence as such statement is deemed to be recorded in a judicial proceeding as envisaged in sub-Section 4 of Section 50 PMLA, 2002. This Court is aware of the fact that meticulously delving into such evidence is the domain of the learned trial court and, therefore, only a fleeting reference has been made of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 of the relevant persons. However, the same does not put an embargo upon the Court to disregard such statements in its totality particularly in a situation when the plea of bail of an accused is being considered. However, the contours of such statements can be taken into consideration in order to ascertain as to whether "reason to believe" that the petitioner is not guilty is fulfilled as enshrined in Section 45 PMLA, 2002.
In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others versus Union of India [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the broad probabilities based on the materials collected during investigation is to be considered and while reiterating the observations made in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT], it was concluded thus 'The court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial.'
The overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Bargain, Ranchi connected to the "proceeds of crime". None of the registers/revenue records bare imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land. As it has been noticed above, the statement of some of the persons u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in question in the year 2010 without any material worth consideration and for all this while none of the ousted persons had approached the competent authority by registering any complaint which has conveniently been discounted by the Enforcement Directorate that the approaches though made to the Police proved futile.
The consequence of the findings recorded by this Court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002 to the effect that there is "reason to believe" that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged - Though the conduct of the petitioner has been sought to be highlighted by the Enforcement Directorate on account of the First Information Report instituted by the petitioner against the officials of the Enforcement Directorate but on an overall conspectus of the case there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence.
The twin conditions as prescribed u/s 45 PMLA, 2002 having been fulfilled, this application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 06/2023, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 dated 26.06.2023.
Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1044
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order - possession of proceeds of crime - petitions have been filed on the primary ground that the respondents lack jurisdiction to initiate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - reasons to believe.
Whether, even assuming that the respondents have material to show that there was illegal sand mining and it had generated huge proceeds, they would be entitled to initiate action under PMLA, in the absence of a scheduled offence investigated by any other investigation agency and determination of proceeds of crime?
HELD THAT:- The respondents have proceeded on the premise that a scheduled offence has been committed and that it has generated proceeds of crime. Neither in their counter nor in any of the Provisional Attachment Orders, the respondents have spelt out the exact scheduled offence committed by the petitioners. That apart, they have also not spelt out as to whether an FIR has been registered for a scheduled offence said to have been committed by either the petitioners or someone else whose proceeds of crime are held by the petitioners. Above all, the exact proceeds of crime, have not been determined.
In the instant case, neither the FIRs relied upon by the respondents nor the reasons given by the respondents for initiating proceedings under PMLA warrant an emergent action. It is noted that though the Provisional Attachment Orders were passed as early as in January 2024, the respondents have not taken any action to inform the concerned jurisdictional Police about the commission of any scheduled offence by the petitioners or any other person through whom the petitioners are dealing with the proceeds of crime.
Strangely, the respondents have chosen to write a letter purporting to be communication under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, on 13.06.2024, to the Director General of Police. In the said letter, the materials that were available to the respondents as early as January 2024 were reiterated. There was no reason as to why the respondents had suddenly discovered the need to send a letter on 13.06.2024, when the matters were heard by this Court on 12.06.2024.
An attachment of property would result in serious consequences for the concerned persons and cannot be based on assumptions made by the respondents as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The FIRs relied upon by the respondents are not even remotely connected to the petitioners. There are no other FIRs as on date to connect the alleged proceeds of crime in the possession of the petitioners in connection to any scheduled offence - There is absolutely no discussion as to what is the proceeds of crime and how they had arrived at that figure. Even if there is proceeds of crime, the respondents cannot assume jurisdiction to attach all other properties on the premise that they were ill-gotten. The Schedule to the Attachment Order suggests that all the money that is lying in the bank accounts were also subject matter of the attachment.
The respondents' case is that there are other FIRs and the State of Tamil Nadu is refusing to share those particulars with the respondents. If that is the case, the remedy lies elsewhere. We are also informed that the respondents have filed a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu to share the information - unless an information with regard to any case in the scheduled offence is registered and such an offence has generated proceeds of crime, which is dealt with by the petitioners, no action can be initiated. As stated earlier, the materials collected and the reasons shown in the Provisional Attachment Order, even if accepted to be true only suggests that the respondents have unearthed large scale illegal sand mining and that may have generated illegal money.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary's case [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], has observed that even assuming that the money obtained by the petitioners is ill-gotten, in the absence of any scheduled offence, that has resulted in proceeds of crime, the respondents cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate action under PMLA. However, we would also make it clear that the respondents would have every right to initiate such action to ensure that the scheduled offence is registered and is investigated. Till such time, the properties of the petitioner cannot be subjected to attachment and the respondents otherwise cannot initiate any action under the PMLA. One cannot put the cart before the horse.
The impugned actions, which are challenged in the Writ Petitions, are without jurisdiction and they are liable to be quashed and as such, stand quashed - Provisional Attachment Orders impugned in the Writ Petitions are quashed - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1003
Rejection of bail - Money Laundering - whether there are reasonable grounds for pleading before and impressing this court that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence, and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail? - it was held by High Court that 'The petitioner is hereby granted bail subject to the terms and conditions of furnishing personal bond to the tune of rupees ten lacs to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail concerned and surety bond of two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial, Srinagar of this court' - HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 866
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - sale of seized vehicle - Interplay between Section 17 & 8 of PMLA and Rule 3 & 4 of PMLA Rules of 2013 - Whether the proceedings carried out in this case by the Directorate of Enforcement are as per law? - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that in the present case, in order to collect the records relating to the money laundering and to trace proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, the Directorate of Enforcement had carried out search under Section 17 of PMLA at several locations and premises. In this process, a total of 26 luxury and high-end cars were found and seized by the respondent, which were prima facie found to have been purchased out of the “proceeds of crime” generated out of the criminal activities of Mr. Sukash Channdersekhar.
A bare perusal of the record leads to only one conclusion that the procedure followed by the respondent was in accordance with the provisions of PMLA and the Rules of 2013. Even the petitioner, neither through the contents of the petition nor during the course of arguments, has been able to point out any infirmity in the above-mentioned process followed by the respondent. Further, the validity of the relevant rule(s) of Rules of 2013, as referred hereinabove, has also not been assailed before this Court by the petitioner herein.
Whether Vehicles are subject to natural decay? - HELD THAT:- The depreciation of vehicles is a well-recognized phenomenon in the automobile industry. From the moment a car is driven out of the showroom, its value begins to decrease. This depreciation accelerates with each passing year, and the resale value drops substantially. After some years, most vehicles lose a significant part of their original value, making them less economically viable to maintain or sell.
By converting the sale proceeds of a movable property subject to natural decay, such as a vehicle, into an interest-bearing fixed deposit, the Rule ensures that the value of seized properties is preserved and potentially increased, thereby ensuring equal justice to either of the party, regardless of the trial’s duration. In this manner, both the right of an accused as well as the right of the investigating agency is protected, since a piece of junk or scrap is of no use to either of them.
In the present case, the petitioner herein has not made any request whatsoever in terms of proviso to Rule 4 (2) that in exchange of any fixed deposit receipt equivalent to the value of cars furnished by her, the cars in question be not sold by the Directorate of Enforcement.
There is no merit in the argument that the sale of seized vehicles in this case is against the mandate of Section 8(6) of PMLA. Needless to say, as per Section 8(6), if the accused persons in this case are found not guilty of offence of money laundering, they would be entitled to receive the amount generated from selling the movable property i.e. cars in the present case, which the Directorate of Enforcement is obliged to keep deposited in the nearest Government Treasury or branch of the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries or in any nationalised bank in fixed deposit.
This Court finds no infirmity with the orders impugned by way of this petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 817
Money Laundering - Criminal conspiracy - petitioner was convicted for the predicate offences under Sections 120B, 409 r/w 109 of the IPC - it was held by High Court that 'Since the respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of PMLA, as there are no proceeds of crime relating to any scheduled offence, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition is also liable to be set aside.' - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 760
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - reasons to believe - violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or not - It is contended that the arrest was illegal, which makes the order of remand to custody of the DoE passed by the Special Court dated 01.04.2024 also illegal.
HELD THAT:- The power of judicial review shall prevail, and the court/magistrate is required to examine that the exercise of the power to arrest meets the statutory conditions. The legislature, while imposing strict conditions as preconditions to arrest, was aware that the arrest may be before or prior to initiation of the criminal proceedings/prosecution complaint. The legislature, neither explicitly nor impliedly, excludes the court surveillance and examination of the preconditions of Section 19(1) of the PML Act being satisfied in a particular case. This flows from the mandate of Section 19(3) which requires that the arrestee must be produced within 24 hours and taken to the Special Court, or court of judicial/metropolitan magistrate having jurisdiction. The exercise of the power to arrest is not exempt from the scrutiny of courts. The power of judicial review remains both before and after the filing of criminal proceedings/prosecution complaint. It cannot be said that the courts would exceed their power, when they examine the validity of arrest under Section 19(1) of the PML Act, once the accused is produced in court in terms of Section 19(3) of the PML Act.
Power to arrest under Section 19(1) is not for the purpose of investigation. Arrest can and should wait, and the power in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act can be exercised only when the material with the designated officer enables them to form an opinion, by recording reasons in writing that the arrestee is guilty.
Section 45 of the PML Act does not stipulate the stage when the accused may move an application for bail. A bail application can be submitted at any stage, either before or after the complaint is filed. Whether the charge is framed or evidence is recorded or not recorded, is immaterial. Clearly, the fact that the prosecution complaint has not been filed, the charge has not been framed, or evidence is either not recorded or partly recorded, will not prevent the court from examining the application for bail within the parameters of Section 45 of the PML Act - It is only on establishing the three facts that the offence of money laundering is committed. When the foundational facts of Section 24 are met, a legal presumption would arise that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. The person concerned who has no causal connection with such proceeds of crime can disprove their involvement in the process or activity connected therewith by producing evidence or material in that regard. In that event, the legal presumption would be rebutted.
Undoubtedly, the opinion of the officer is subjective, but formation of opinion should be in accordance with the law. Subjectivity of the opinion is not a carte blanche to ignore relevant absolving material without an explanation. In such a situation, the officer commits an error in law which goes to the root of the decision making process, and amounts to legal malice.
The principle of parity or equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for repeating or multiplying irregularity or illegality. If any advantage or benefit has been wrongly given, another person cannot claim the same advantage as a matter of right on account of the error or mistake. However, this principle may not apply where two or more courses are available to the authorities. The doctrine of need and necessity to arrest possibly accepts the said principle. Section 45 gives primacy to the opinion of the DoE when it comes to grant of bail. DoE should act uniformly, consistent in conduct, confirming one rule for all.
Arvind Kejriwal is an elected leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi, a post holding importance and influence. We have also referred to the allegations. While no direction given, since it is doubtful whether the court can direct an elected leader to step down or not function as the Chief Minister or as a Minister, it is left to Arvind Kejriwal to take a call. Larger Bench, if deemed appropriate, can frame question(s) and decide the conditions that can be imposed by the court in such cases.
The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench, and if appropriate, a Constitution Bench, for consideration of the aforesaid questions. The questions framed above, if required, can be reformulated, substituted and added to.
-
2024 (7) TMI 623
Grant of anticipatory bail - appellant not arrested during the investigation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant has not been arrested during the investigation and as of now a complaint has been filed.
The impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 558
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - allegation of amassing property and cash - it was held by High Court that 'In this case, of course, the Petitioner is facing a proceeding under PML Act for commission of offence of Money Laundering and, therefore, the rival claims of ED and the petitioner with respect to the offence and the property attached or seized by the ED are subject of adjudication and presumption under PML Act but keeping the Petitioner in custody for the purpose of trial or in anticipation of any other complaint or supplementary complaint which is not in existence at present, would be devoid of any sound logic, especially when the petitioner had already been acquitted for commission of scheduled/ predicate offences and the property seized in connection with that case had already been directed to be returned back to the Petitioner, no matter the criminal appeal against such order of acquittal is pending before this Court.'
HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court, more particularly, when the respondent has already been acquitted in the predicate offence.
SLP dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 557
Money Laundering - it was held by High Court that 'Since the complaint itself is not maintainable, the respondent has no jurisdiction to attach the properties of the petitioners and therefore the order of attachment passed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 dated 30.09.2022 impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be quashed and hence, quashed.'
HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 556
Money Laundering - seeking interim bail on medical grounds - absence of an opinion from the experts - Section 45 (1) of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- his Court finds that evidently in terms of the report of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No. 7, Tihar, Delhi, the dietary requirements for the health and survival of the petitioner are being provided only partially to him. If the remarks/opinion of the Doctors at DDU Hospital are believed, the provision of a strict diet is very critical and essential for the adequate recovery of the petitioner since the surgery has led to removal of 75% of stomach - It is brought forth that the applicant has been experiencing fever and deranged blood glucose level besides the fact that there has been several episodes of blood vomiting.
In the case of PAWAN @ TAMATAR VERSUS RAM PRAKASH PANDEY & ANR. [2002 (5) TMI 890 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court had an occasion to hold that the discretion vested in the courts to grant bail on medical grounds should be exercised in a sparing and cautious manner. It was observed that every nature of sickness would not entitle the accused to be released on bail unless it is demonstrated that the sickness is of such nature that if the accused is not released, he cannot get proper treatment.
In a decision by this Court tilted Sanjay Jain (JC) v. Enforcement Directorate [2023 (6) TMI 1324 - DELHI HIGH COURT], it was held that the right of an individual to be released on interim bail on medical grounds arises when specialized treatment becomes necessary and the same cannot be provided by the jail authorities.
On a conspectus of the report dated 14.06.2024 by the Medical Board of the AIIMS as also the treating Doctors at DDU Hospital as per the prescription dated 21.06.2024, besides the medical history of the applicant, the answer should be in the affirmative. It is but manifest that the dietary requirements of the applicant are such that they cannot be provided in the jail premises. Considering that the petitioner has undergone surgery on 09.04.2024, post Bariatric Surgery, he needs to be given a proper diet in order to attain adequate physical, mental and psychological well-being for at least a period of 3 to 4 months - There is no gainsaying that providing home cooked food on an every day basis for a long duration is fraught with several technical hurdles at the jail premises.
This court is inclined to allow the application for interim bail on medical grounds for a period of six weeks from the date of his release from jail, subject to the fulfilment of terms and conditions imposed - application disposed off.
-
2024 (7) TMI 555
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence/predicate offence - attachment of bank accounts - illegal racket of kidney transplantation - HELD THAT:- In Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 'an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists.'
In Nik Nish Retail Ltd. v. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate [2022 (11) TMI 1280 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], the Calcutta High Court, while dealing with a case where the FIR in respect of the predicate offence was quashed on the basis of settlement has held that the proceedings initiated under PMLA, 2002 provisions cannot stand in isolation in the absence of any scheduled offence.
The Telangana High Court in Manturi Shashi Kumar v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, [2023 (4) TMI 1199 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] has also quashed a complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 on the grounds of the accused being discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence.
This Court, in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforecement [2022 (7) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has taken a view that once it is found that a criminal offence does not stand evidenced, the question of any property being derived or obtained therefrom or its confiscation or attachment would not arise at all.
A bare perusal of the facts of the present case would show that the Trial Court had already acquitted the appellant-Jeevan Kumar of all the charges framed against him and the same has remained unchallenged by the respondent. Therefore, his acquittal in the scheduled offence breaks the entire chain leading to the other appellants - the attachment proceedings in the present case are unsustainable as the appellants cannot be said to be involved in any activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 190
Challenge to order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the period of “6-8 months” fixed by this Court by Order dated 30.10.2023 having not come to an end, it would suffice to dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/Charge-sheet as assured by learned Solicitor General. Needless to state that in the event of such an application being filed, the same would be considered on its own merits.
These petitions stand disposed of.
-
2024 (7) TMI 189
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime out of illegal gratification in lieu of giving favours to the bidders by leasing out the Waqf properties to them - predicate offence - twin conditions of Section 45 (1) of PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- While the conclusive evidentiary value of the statements under Section 50 PMLA will be determined at the end of the trial, the Courts can rely on the statements under Section 50 of PMLA and other material collected by the prosecution to determine if a prima facie case is made out for the purpose of granting bail - At this stage, the only evidence available includes the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA and other corroborating material, such as electronic evidence, money transactions, or documentary evidence. This evidence is crucial for the Court to assess a person’s involvement in an offence under PMLA. Therefore, this Court finds that the argument that statements under Section 50 of PMLA cannot be considered at the stage of bail is without merit.
The material evidence gathered during the course of the investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement reveals that Amanatullah Khan had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with his close associates i.e., the present applicants/accuseds and others and pursuant to the same, he had invested his ill-gotten money i.e. proceeds of crime, in the immovable properties through his associates namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and others. As alleged, Amanatullah Khan had purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars i.e. the present applicants Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, by concealing and suppressing their actual value which is very nominal in comparison to their actual sale value and actively concealed amounts that were paid in cash to the seller, which are the proceeds of crime acquired by Amanatullah Khan out of his corrupt and illegal activities relating to the offences scheduled under PMLA.
This Court further upon careful consideration of the submissions and documents presented by Sh. Zoheb Hossain learned Special Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, notes that the interim bail granted to applicant Daud Nasir on 10.05.2024, was primarily for the purpose of taking care of his wife during her scheduled surgery on 17.05.2024 at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. It has been argued that this surgery was not conducted as scheduled. This Court has gone through the email dated 28.05.2024 sent by Fortis Hospital to the Directorate of Enforcement which reveals that the applicant’s wife neither submitted the prescribed medical reports to the doctors nor went to the hospital for admission or surgery on the scheduled date - This Court is of the opinion that the applicant/accused Daud Nasir has misled the Court by misrepresenting the need for interim bail, which was granted based on the necessity of a major surgery at Fortis Hospital. Thus, the conduct of the applicant Daud Nasir is doubtful and this Court is of the opinion if the applicant Daud Nasir if released on bail, may misuse the liberty and may attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
The material brought before this Court at this stage is sufficient to attract bar under Section 45 of PMLA on both the applicants. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of regular bail to the present applicants i.e., Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir.
Application dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 115
Money Laundering - amassing substantial assets through corrupt and illegal means - seeking issuance of necessary directions including ad-interim ex-parte order restraining the respondent from contemplating any proceedings including criminal proceedings against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has held that offence of money laundering can be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of scheduled offence. It has also been held that the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence under PMLA, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, such person may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money laundering under PMLA.
In response to the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the argument of the petitioner is that a review petition titled Karti P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2022 (8) TMI 1373 - SUPREME COURT]has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court for review of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. However, this argument can be of no help to the petitioner as far as instant applications seeking stay of proceedings are concerned since as on date, the question of law stands answered by the three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and even though review of the said judgment is pending, no direction has been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, nor has the judgment been stayed. Thus, the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be binding upon this Court.
Considering the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the fact that Section 13 of PC Act is a scheduled offence under PMLA, which has not been declared as unconstitutional or violative of any fundamental right by any court of law, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that trial court proceedings in this case should be stayed since continuation of the same would amount to double jeopardy is also devoid of any merit.
This Court finds no reason to allow the present applications seeking stay of trial court proceedings - Application dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 114
Period for which property can be retained - order passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond a period of more than 180 days given under Section 20(3) of PMLA, 2002 - constitution of the Adjudicating Authority.
Period for which property can be retained - order passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond a period of more than 180 days given under Section 20(3) of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Section 20(1) provides that if property is seized or frozen, it may continue to remain frozen or seized for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date the property was seized or frozen - In the instant case, the impugned order was passed on 22.08.2022 while the freezing of the amount of FD and bank account was on 05.11.2021. Thus, the impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond the period of 180 days. The fact, however, remains that due to Covid-19, the Apex Court excluded the period for the purpose of limitation and even termination of proceedings till 28.02.2022 in the Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3/2020 decided on 10.01.2022. The period otherwise started from 15.03.2020. In view of the above, the period till 28.02.2022 cannot be counted for termination of the proceedings. The period has to be excluded from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022.
Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas WSP Ltd [2021 (1) TMI 1161 - DELHI HIGH COURT] set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority passed after 180 days on the ground that the Apex Court has excluded the period for the purpose of limitation for taking remedies in the courts by the litigants and not for the extension of the period for termination of proceedings.
The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded for computation of 180 days as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] - the issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Constitution of the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- The Calcutta High Court in the case of R.P. Infosystems Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority [2023 (8) TMI 1051 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] held that even a single member bench of the adjudicating authority is competent to adjudicate any matter under the provisions of the Act of 2002.
In a recent case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Karvy India Realty Limited [2024 (2) TMI 732 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], Telangana High Court also held that the powers under Section 6 of the Act of 2002 can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority comprising of single member.
There are no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 14
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - twin conditions as per Section 45 of the PMLA 2002 satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 45 of the PMLA 2022, post-judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] cannot operate retrospectively, is also without any basis.
Bail cannot be granted to the petitioners at this stage, as the earlier finding of this Court that the twin conditions have not been satisfied still holds good. Hence, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
