9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1033 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - the appellant submits that no prosecution complaint has been filed against the appellant under PMLA, 2002 within the statutory period as prescribed in u/s 8(3)(a) of the PMLA-2002 than existed - HELD THAT - In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 13.09.2018, the prosecution complaint has been filed on 03.05.2019 - The 90 days period for filing prosecution complaint from the date of impugned order has expired in the month of December, 2018 which is before the amendment of extending the period for filing the prosecution complaint to 365 days. A legal right has accrued to the appellant in view of the section 8(3)(a) of PMLA-2002 when the prosecution complaint was not filed within 90 days. The provision of Section 8(3) read with 8(3)(a) of the PMLA clearly provides that the attachment order of Adjudicating Authority shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding of 90 days or pendency of proceedings relating to any offence under this act before a court. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this act before a court within 90 days from the date impugned order. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. 2. Failure to file prosecution complaint within the statutory period. 3. Interpretation of Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA-2002. 4. Impact of High Court's stay order on filing the prosecution complaint. 5. Lapse of attachment order due to failure to file prosecution complaint within 90 days. 6. Setting aside the impugned order of attachment. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment of a property based on allegations of money laundering. 2. The main contention raised was the failure to file a prosecution complaint within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of the impugned order. The appellant argued that this lapse entitled them to have the attachment order set aside. 3. Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA-2002 was crucial in this case. It stipulates that the attachment of property shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 90 days or the pendency of proceedings relating to any offence under the Act before a court. The court noted that in this instance, there was no such pendency of proceedings within the specified timeframe. 4. The respondent contended that the delay in filing the prosecution complaint was due to a stay order issued by the High Court. However, the court found that the High Court's order did not prohibit the Enforcement Directorate from filing the prosecution complaint within the stipulated 90 days. 5. Due to the failure to file the prosecution complaint within the prescribed period, the court concluded that the attachment of the property in question had lapsed. Consequently, the impugned order of attachment and the Provisional Attachment Order were set aside. 6. It was clarified that the court did not delve into the merits of the appeal, and if the property in question was part of the prosecution complaint, the appellant would need to seek appropriate orders from the special court. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, interpretations of relevant provisions, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the attachment order.
|
