2019 (8) TMI 264 - AT - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - bribing during the time of money demonetisation - retention of seized valuables - HELD THAT - It has come to our notice that the prescribed period of 90 days was incorporated by amendment of the provision of Section 8(3)(a) only on 19.04.2018. The said amendment was prospective and no retrospective effect can be given. It may be another plea of the appellant that the prosecution complaint ought to have been filed within the period of 180 days as prescribed under the Act from the date of attachment - The said arguments were never addressed by any of the parties. The order was reserved with the understanding that after amendment carried out on 19.04.2018, no prosecution complaint has been filed within the period of 90 days. The same is not the position of the present case. It has only come to notice to this Tribunal once the written-submission is filed by the respondent. Both the parties are directed to argue the appeal on this aspect as to whether under the un-amended act, the prosecution complaint was to be filed within 180 days from the date of provisional attachment order or after passing the confirmation order within the meaning of amended Section 8(3)(a) of the Act. List this appeal for re-hearing/fresh argument on 22.10.2019.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in OA No.78/2017.
2. Allegations of money laundering involving demonetized currency deposits during demonetization period.
3. Arrests, recoveries, and provisional attachment orders under PMLA.
4. Seizure of valuables under section 17 of PMLA and filing of OA No. 78/2017 for retention.
5. Supplementary Prosecution Complaint against multiple accused, including the appellant.
6. Denial of charges by the appellant and arguments regarding the timeliness of prosecution complaint filing.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by AnirudhNarainAgarwal under Section 26 of the PMLA against an order dated 14.06.2017 in OA No.78/2017. The respondent alleged collusion in depositing demonetized currency during demonetization, leading to arrests and investigations under PMLA.

2. The investigation revealed that demonetized currency was deposited by individuals with the collusion of bank officials, resulting in arrests and recovery of significant amounts. An FIR was registered, and provisional attachment orders were issued under PMLA, leading to further actions against the accused.

3. Valuables were seized from AnirudhAgarwal under section 17 of PMLA, and a petition was filed for retention. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the retention order till the investigation's pendency. A supplementary prosecution complaint was filed against additional accused, including AnirudhAgarwal.

4. The appellant denied all charges and argued against the timeliness of the prosecution complaint filing. The Tribunal noted the amendment regarding the filing period and directed both parties to argue whether the complaint should be filed within 180 days from the provisional attachment order or after passing the confirmation order as per the amended Section 8(3)(a) of the Act.

5. The Tribunal scheduled a re-hearing for further arguments on this aspect on 22.10.2019, emphasizing the importance of addressing the timeliness issue under the un-amended and amended provisions of the Act. The judgment reflects a detailed examination of the legal aspects and procedural requirements concerning the prosecution complaint filing timeline under the PMLA.