9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1050 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Accumulation of disproportionate assets accumulated by the accused/ MLA/ Minister Anos Ekka and Harinarayan Rai - criminal conspiracy - misappropriation - criminal breach of trust - cheating forgery fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration amount - acquiring assets disproportionate to his known lawful source of income and also to have acquired lands in violation of C.N.T. Act in the name of his wife Smt Menon Ujjana Ekka - scheduled offence/predicate offence. HELD THAT - The three ingredients of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of PMLA are I. A criminal activity which is a scheduled offence should have been committed. II. Some money should have been generated by the criminal activity; III. The money so generated (proceed of the crime) should have been projected as untainted one. In the present case the prosecution has proved all the three basic ingredients of the offence. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment of conviction by the trial Court. Judgment of conviction under predicate offence is also affirmed in Criminal Appeal no.326/, 327/ and 328/ pending before this Court and pronounced by a separate Judgment today. Sentence - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle that criminal law generally adheres to the principles of proportionality in sentencing. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases can render the criminal adjudication as an exercise in futility. Appellant in the present case was none other than an elected representative of the people who was reposed with faith to discharge his constitutional obligations with the highest degree of probity. Unfortunately power blinded his wisdom and he indulged in rampant corruption by acquiring movable and immovable property much beyond his known sources of income. The proceeds of crime under a grand design and various contrivances were projected as untainted by the process of money laundering. The nature of crime post held by the appellant does not justify any leniency in sentencing. On the point of sentence considering the gravity of offence and the position of responsibility as held by the appellant/accused the sentence of imprisonment and fine needs no interference by this Court. The learned Court below has recorded adequate and sufficient reasons for awarding sentence which will meet the ends of justice. These are species of crime that strike at the financial foundation of the State and the convict does not deserve any clemency so that the deterrent effect of punishment is not completely diluted - the order of confiscation of crime proceeds is also affirmed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is upheld - Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Applicability of amendments in PMLA. 3. Requirement of charge-sheet for scheduled offences. 4. Necessity of attachment order for prosecution under PMLA. 5. Imposition of fine exceeding statutory limit. 6. Concurrent sentencing under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentence under Section 4 of PMLA: The appellant was convicted under Section 4 of PMLA and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 Crores. The trial court also ordered the confiscation of tainted properties worth Rs. 22,38,40,247.92. The prosecution established that the appellant acquired assets worth Rs. 57.01 Crores, disproportionate to his known sources of income, during his tenure as a minister from 2005 to 2008. These assets were invested in various properties, deposits, and a construction company to project the proceeds of crime as untainted income. 2. Applicability of Amendments in PMLA: The appellant argued that the amendments to PMLA in 2009 and 2013 should not apply retrospectively. The court held that the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence, irrespective of when the predicate offence was committed. The relevant date is when the accused indulges in activities connected with the proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India affirmed that the inclusion of a predicate offence in the schedule after its commission does not preclude prosecution under PMLA. 3. Requirement of Charge-sheet for Scheduled Offences: The appellant contended that the absence of a charge-sheet for the scheduled offences invalidated the PMLA proceedings. The court rejected this argument, stating that PMLA does not require a charge-sheet for initiating prosecution. The existence of 'proceeds of crime' and involvement in related activities are sufficient for prosecution under PMLA. 4. Necessity of Attachment Order for Prosecution under PMLA: The appellant argued that prosecution under PMLA was invalid without an attachment order. The court clarified that attachment is not a precondition for investigation or prosecution under PMLA. Provisional attachment can be made if there is a reason to believe that the person in possession of proceeds of crime may conceal or transfer the property. 5. Imposition of Fine Exceeding Statutory Limit: The appellant challenged the fine of Rs. 2 Crores, arguing that the maximum fine under Section 4 of PMLA was Rs. 5 Lakhs at the time of the offence. The court held that the offence of money laundering is continuing, and the fine applicable at the time of prosecution (post-amendment) is relevant. The appellant continued to hold proceeds of crime until December 2014, justifying the higher fine. 6. Concurrent Sentencing under Section 427 of Cr.P.C.: The appellant sought concurrent sentencing for offences under PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court rejected this plea, stating that the offences are distinct and do not warrant concurrent sentencing. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the appellant's position of responsibility, justifying the separate sentences. Conclusion: The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, including the fine and confiscation of properties. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court emphasized the continuing nature of the offence and the appellant's misuse of his official position to acquire disproportionate assets.
|
