2023 (6) TMI 471 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking for a direction to the respondents/authorities to permit him to travel to Seychelles on condition to return to Indiaserious economic offences involving huge public money - violation of fundamental right to travel - HELD THAT - This court finds that this is virtually, a second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner had challenged the same LOC, which was in his way to proceed abroad, which was curtailed and failed in his attempt before this court as well as the Apex Court, he has come up before this court with a slightly modified relief of seeking permission to travel abroad on the assurance that he would come back to India to cooperate with the investigation agencies. Practically, the same LOC is preventing him to perform his travel even as of now and the relief sought for in this petition is nothing but the same old wine in a new bottle, of course with a different label. The idea of issuing LOC is only to ensure that big offenders do not go scot free by flying away to other countries and protract or dilute the smooth investigation of criminal cases/serious economic offences involving public money pending against them by taking shelter under the cumbersome process to bring them back into the circle of investigation. Indisputably, the petitioner is facing charges of serious economic offences involving huge public money and money laundering, warranting investigation by various investigation agencies. In some of the cases pending against the petitioner, trial has commenced, it appears and many cases are under investigation. Further, the petitioner is a foreign national. Though he claims to have strong roots in Chennai/India, he has not come out with any permanent local address also to strengthen his claim. It is the case of the respondents that the further investigation is on a crucial stage requiring the presence of the petitioner in the absence of which, the investigation process may get prolonged and diluted and therefore, under the guise of personal liberty to travel, he cannot be permitted de hors the existence of the LOC, especially, when there is no extradition treaty between India and Seychelles. Whether declaring the LOC as ultra vires or directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform a short journey despite pendency of the LOC, whatever may be the relief sought for, the object of the petitioner, particularly, a foreign national, who is facing serious economic offences, a modern threat to the development of the country, is to be away from India. Considering the gravity of the offence and involvement of huge public money, this court is not inclined to entertain the camouflaging relief sought for by the petitioner - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Look Out Circular (LOC) preventing the petitioner from traveling abroad.
2. Petitioner's diplomatic immunity claim.
3. Petitioner's cooperation with investigation agencies.
4. Petitioner's right to personal liberty and travel.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Legality of Look Out Circular (LOC) Preventing Travel:
The petitioner, a Seychelles national, challenged the LOC issued by various investigating authorities, which prevented him from traveling abroad. The LOC was initially issued due to suspicions of fraud and money laundering involving loans sanctioned by IDBI to M/s.Win Wind Oy, Finland, and M/s.Axcel Sunshine Limited, causing a wrongful loss of over Rs.600 crores. The petitioner had previously contested the LOC up to the Apex Court, which upheld the High Court's decision dismissing his challenge. The court noted that the LOC is intended to prevent offenders from evading investigation by fleeing the country.

2. Petitioner's Diplomatic Immunity Claim:
The petitioner claimed diplomatic immunity as an Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles. However, the court observed that this argument was previously rejected by both the High Court and the Apex Court. The petitioner had failed to provide new evidence to support his claim for immunity.

3. Petitioner's Cooperation with Investigation Agencies:
The petitioner argued that he had been cooperating with the investigation and assured his return to India if allowed to travel abroad. The respondents contended that the petitioner's cooperation was due to his inability to leave India and that his further presence was crucial for ongoing investigations. The court found that the petitioner's constrained cooperation did not guarantee his return if permitted to travel abroad.

4. Petitioner's Right to Personal Liberty and Travel:
The petitioner asserted his right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad. The respondents argued that the petitioner, being a foreign national, posed a flight risk, especially since Seychelles does not have an extradition treaty with India. The court emphasized the gravity of the economic offences involving public money and concluded that the petitioner's personal liberty could not override the need for his presence in ongoing investigations.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's request to travel abroad was essentially a reiteration of previously rejected claims. The LOC was upheld as necessary to ensure the petitioner's availability for investigation and trial in serious economic offences. The court highlighted the importance of preventing offenders from evading justice by fleeing the country. No costs were awarded.