2019 (9) TMI 585 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - attachment made by the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) - HELD THAT - It is evident that the PAO, the Original Complaint and the Impugned Order have simply copy pasted the contents of the CBI Chargesheet. In the present, very serious issues are involved, those have to be decided legally. We have examined the chart filed alongwith rejoinder as Annexure-A, which highlights the similarities between the Chargesheet, the PAO, the Original Complaint and the Impugned Order. Shockingly, the contents of these documents are almost identical and which evidences that the Respondent No.1 i.e. the author of the PAO and Original Complaint and the AA i.e. the author of the Impugned Order, has not applied his mind. He who passed the order was not the Judicial Member. The order was passed in very casual manner. In serious and complicated issues cut paste of pleadings and documents is not acceptable. It is the approach of claimed that PMLA is an independent proceeding and it has own mechanism to decide the matter on merit. The reply, appellant has put its case in details issue-wise. No doubt, the contents of the reply was re-produced but the said legal issues have not been decided. The impugned order is set-aside on the reason that the impugned order has without assigning any reasons, and much less any legally cogent reasons, independent mind has not been applied. We allow the appeal and the matter is remanded back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after considering the reply filed by the appellant to the notice under Section 8 (1) of Act. The Adjudicating Authority shall hear the matter on all the issues and shall consider all the issue raised in the reply. Adjudicating Authority is granted six months time from 21.10.2019 to decide the matter by the Member (Law) after hearing both side.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Impugned Order confirming attachment under PAO, Non-application of mind by Adjudicating Authority, Failure to supply "reasons to believe," Legal infirmities in Impugned Order, Copy-pasting of documents, Malafide actions of Government, Retrospective operation of PMLA.

Issue 1: Appeal against Impugned Order
The appeal was filed against the Impugned Order confirming the attachment made by the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27 February 2017. The Appellant argued that the Impugned Order suffers from serious legal infirmities and lacks a judicial approach as it did not address the submissions made by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority was accused of passing the order in violation of statutory provisions.

Issue 2: Failure to supply "Reasons to believe"
The attachment of the Appellant's properties was challenged on the ground that the Respondent failed to provide "reasons to believe" for the issuance of the PAO. The Adjudicating Authority was criticized for not supplying these reasons at the time of issuing the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Appellant contended that the hearing officer did not adequately address the reply filed and relevant documents were not served.

Issue 3: Copy-pasting of documents
The learned Sr. Counsel argued that the PAO, Original Complaint, and Impugned Order simply copied the contents of the CBI Chargesheet, indicating a lack of independent thought by the authorities. The documents were found to be almost identical, suggesting a casual approach in a matter involving serious legal issues. The lack of independent decision-making and the cut-paste approach were deemed unacceptable.

Issue 4: Malafide actions of Government
The Appellant raised concerns about the malafide actions of the Government of India in the proceedings. The Appellant highlighted the need for a fair and unbiased approach in dealing with the case, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring transparency in the process.

Issue 5: Retrospective operation of PMLA
The argument was made regarding the retrospective operation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Appellant contended that the Act should not have retrospective application, raising questions about the legal implications of applying the provisions retroactively.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order due to the lack of reasons provided and the failure to address legal issues raised by the Appellant. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of considering all issues and applying independent legal analysis. The Adjudicating Authority was granted six months to decide the matter after hearing both sides, with the parties directed to appear for further directions. No costs were awarded in the judgment.