9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1380 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - seeking quashing of the ECIR - summons dated 8.6.2023 issued by the Enforcement Directorate - provisional attachment of property - HELD THAT - In the instant case, cash amounting to a total of Rs. 49.80 Crore and gold jewellery valued at more than Rs. 5.08 Crore has already been seized from Ms. Arpita Mukherjee, a close associate of Shri Partha Chatterjee. The ED has also provisionally attached properties worth Rs. 71.18 Crores in this recruitment scam by way of issuance of 3 Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) so far in addition to the cash and gold seizure. The total seizure and attachment in the case stands at Rs. 126 Crore (approx.). The E.D. in this case before this Court has relied upon only the 4th Supplementary Complaint. As such, except the statement of Sujay Krishna Bhadra (an accused who is in custody) no materials were produced by E.D. before this Court to relate the petitioner with the ECIR under challenge - no coercive measures would be taken against the petitioner by the E.D. without adhering to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. Revision disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of ECIR. 2. Quashing of Summons dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Enforcement Directorate. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of ECIR The petitioner challenged the proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), specifically ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022, and sought its quashing. The petitioner argued that the investigation lacked a predicate offence against him, rendering the ECIR invalid. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended that ECIR is an internal document and not a statutory requirement for initiating an investigation. The court noted that the investigation was ongoing and the petitioner had appeared before the ED pursuant to the summons. The court held that the stage at which the petitioner approached was premature and thus, the prayer for quashing the ECIR was not maintainable. Issue 2: Quashing of Summons dated 08.06.2023 The petitioner also sought to quash the summons issued by the ED on 08.06.2023, arguing that it was a part of a politically motivated harassment campaign. The court examined the materials presented, including the statement of a co-accused linking the petitioner to the investigation. The court directed that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioner without adhering to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, as explained in the Supreme Court judgment in V. Senthil Balaji v. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. The court emphasized the need for the ED to follow due process and record reasons for any arrest, ensuring compliance with legal mandates. Conclusion: The court disposed of the petition, stating that the prayer for quashing the ECIR was premature and could not be entertained at this stage. However, it provided protection to the petitioner against coercive actions by the ED, requiring strict adherence to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 19 of the PMLA.
|
