2019 (2) TMI 883 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - Provisional Attachment - amount seized from the possession of the Appellant - Held that - the respondent has sufficiently explained the reason to believe that why the said amount is required to be attached under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. It is not denied by the appellant that the aforesaid amount has been seized from the possession of the Appellant, secondly, the said amount is reflected in the FIR No. 27/2016 and the charge sheet dated 17.06.2016, thirdly, there is no material placed by the appellant that the said criminal case is disposed of in his favour. There are sufficient reasons explained by the respondent as well as Adjudicating Authority in attaching the amount involved in this appeal and confirmation of the same respectively. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondent that the appellant failed to discharge his burden as required under Section 24 of the PMLA. The technical objection raised by the appellant is that he has been acquitted in the criminal case in PS case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 in which the aforesaid amount has been seized. Secondly, it is also submitted by the appellant that the seizure of aforesaid amount in PS case no. 27 dated 03.02.2016 is illegal. In this regard, the Appellant ought to have moved the concerned Trial Court to get the aforesaid amount released in his favour. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Adjudicating Authority in Provisional Attachment Order.
2. Setting aside the order and seeking appropriate relief.
3. Allegations of criminal activities against the appellant.
4. Offences committed under various sections of IPC and Arms Act.
5. Seizure of cash from the appellant's house.
6. Registration of ECIR and investigation under PMLA.
7. Acquittal in one case but involvement in another.
8. Failure to provide evidence regarding seized cash.
9. Burden of proving seized amount as untainted.
10. Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order.
11. Lack of "reason to believe" for attaching the cash.
12. Explanation of reasons for attachment by respondent.
13. Failure to discharge burden under PMLA.
14. Dismissal of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order by the Adjudicating Authority in the Provisional Attachment Order, seeking relief from the decision (para 2).

2. The appellant, a contractor, faced allegations of criminal activities including extortion, tender fixing, and Arms Act offences, leading to multiple FIRs and arrests (para 3).

3. Charges were filed against the appellant under various sections of IPC and Arms Act, leading to the registration of ECIR for investigation under PMLA (para 4).

4. Cash amount seized from the appellant's house during an investigation was considered as proceeds of crime under a specific case (para 5).

5. Despite acquittal in one case, the appellant's involvement in another case was noted, raising questions about the seized cash (para 7).

6. The appellant failed to provide evidence regarding the seized cash and its connection to the criminal cases (para 8).

7. The burden of proving the seized amount as untainted was not discharged by the appellant (para 8).

8. The appellant challenged the Provisional Attachment Order, citing lack of "reason to believe" for attaching the cash (para 12).

9. The respondent explained the reasons for attaching the cash, supported by the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the order (para 12).

10. The appellant's failure to discharge the burden under PMLA was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (para 13).

11. The technical objections raised by the appellant regarding the seizure of the cash were deemed insufficient, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed (para 13).

12. The judgment emphasized that there was no merit in the appeal and no grounds to interfere with the findings of the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal (para 14).

← Previous Next →