2019 (2) TMI 96 - AT - Money Laundering

Release of amount confiscated - alleged proceeds of crime - appellant has admittedly has now furnished surety in the court, therefore, the surety being in excess to the controversial amount of Rs. Twenty Three Lacs pertaining to this account, the appellant seeks suitable directions for release of ₹ 29,96,055 - appellant has filed the appeal against the order dated 20-03-2013 passed by Adjudicating Authority in OC-163-12-PMLA which is pending before this tribunal and is now fixed for hearing for 22-04-2019. Held that - In a way, ED wants to secure double the amount, one a surety given by the appellant as per order of Special Court and secondly on deposit, the FDR shall be prepared and shall not be encashed till the final order of PMLA complaint is decided. The contention of ED cannot be accepted on double attachment without prejudice. The surety given by the appellant may be treated as alleged proceed of crime - ED is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 29,96,055.65/- in the same account within one week from today. In failure to so the attachment shall be treated as released without any further notice with regard to the said amount. The suggestion given on behalf of applicant is allowed. The applicant shall not deal with the said amount till further order of this Tribunal - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of confiscated sum to the appellant.
2. Failure of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file a reply.
3. Pending appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Application for defreezing the appellant's bank account.
5. Attachment of funds by the Enforcement Directorate as proceeds of crime.
6. Controversy over the amount alleged to be proceeds of crime.
7. Furnishing of surety by the appellant.
8. Directions for the release of the disputed amount.
9. Undertakings by the appellant regarding the disputed amount.
10. Double attachment of funds by the ED.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking the release of a sum confiscated by the Enforcement Directorate. Despite an opportunity, the ED failed to file a reply, leading to the appellant's request for the release of the amount.
2. The appellant had a pending appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority, which was fixed for hearing. The appellant also made an application to defreeze a bank account related to the case.
3. The Enforcement Directorate had attached a sum of money as proceeds of crime, leading to a dispute over the amount. The appellant sought directions for the release of the disputed amount based on furnishing surety.
4. The appellant furnished surety in court, exceeding the controversial amount. The appellant requested suitable directions for the release of the excess amount.
5. The appellant undertook not to withdraw the surety even if the special court ruled in their favor until the appeal was decided. The appellant also agreed to convert a portion of the amount into a fixed deposit and not encash it until the PMLA proceedings were resolved.
6. The Enforcement Directorate was directed to deposit the disputed amount in the same account within a week. Failure to do so would result in the release of the attachment without further notice. The appellant was prohibited from dealing with the amount until further orders from the Tribunal. The prayer for release was allowed, and the application was disposed of.