Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (2) TMI 948 - HC - Money Laundering


Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Discharge of the accused in the scheduled offence and its impact on the PAO.
3. Legal precedents and their application to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):

The petitioner challenged the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 14th January 2022, issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 5 of the PMLA. The PAO was based on FIR No. 109/2020 registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned PAO attached properties mortgaged with the petitioner, which were part of the Omkar 1973 Project financed by Yes Bank Ltd. and Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. The attachment was linked to the alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 330 crores used for the construction of Towers A, B, and C in the Omkar 1973 Worli project.

2. Discharge of the accused in the scheduled offence and its impact on the PAO:

The petitioner argued that the closure report filed by the Mumbai Police had been accepted by the trial court, and the case instituted by the ED had also been closed. The petitioner was merely a lender to M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ORDPL) and had no involvement in the alleged money laundering activities. The Special Court under PMLA, Greater Bombay, had discharged ORDPL, which was arrayed as A-2, from the case. The court noted that the term "Proceeds of Crime" under the PMLA is based on criminal activity related to a scheduled offence. When the scheduled offence is not in existence, there cannot be any tainted money, and without it, there is nothing to be laundered.

3. Legal precedents and their application to the case:

The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, held that if the accused person is discharged/acquitted in the scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them or any person having property linked to the accused. The court emphasized that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is dependent on the illegal gain of property resulting from criminal activity related to a scheduled offence. This legal position was affirmed in subsequent cases such as Parvathi Kollur v. Enforcement Directorate, Adjudicating Authority v. Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors., and Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court in Harish Fabiani and Ors. v. Enforcement of Directorate and Ors. reiterated that no action under PMLA can be taken unless there is a subsisting criminal complaint or inquiry related to a scheduled offence.

Conclusion:

After considering the submissions and the legal precedents, the court concluded that the impugned PAO against the properties of Piramal could not continue as the petitioner was not an accused but merely a lender to ORDPL. The attached flats were ordered to be released. The court granted liberty to the ED to seek revival of the PAO if there is any change in circumstances and allowed the petitioner to move an appropriate application if the properties are not released. The petition was disposed of with these observations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates