9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 831 - AT - Money LaunderingSeeking lapse of the order of attachment in reference to Section 5(1) and (3) of the Act of 2002 - Legality of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in relation to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - The appellant has given reference of relevant dates which started with issuance of Provisional Attachment Order on 18.06.2021 followed by Show Cause Notice by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.08.2021. The reply to it was filed on 16.09.2021. The pleadings were then completed on 23.09.2021 and thereupon the matter was kept for final hearing. It is true that the Adjudicating Authority needs to pass an order to terminate the proceedings within 180 days otherwise the attachment would lapse but there was extra-ordinary situation during the period Covid-19 and, therefore, the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited 2022 (2) TMI 1268 - SUPREME COURT has provided safeguard to the litigants and others for termination of proceedings and illustratively reference of few provisions like Arbitration Act was given. It was with clarity that it would apply to other statutes also - the argument of the appellant to lapse the proceedings despite the period for termination of proceedings which was excluded from 15.03.2020 till 20.08.2022, cannot be accepted. If the aforesaid period is excluded, left out period in this case is hardly of 26 days i.e. less than 180 days. Thus, even the subsequent legal issue raised by the appellant is not worth acceptance and is rejected summarily. Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in relation to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. 3. Validity of the FIRs and ECIR in light of existing civil disputes. 4. Compliance with statutory timelines for confirming the provisional attachment order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Attachment Order: The appeal challenges the order confirming the attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that the attachment order should be set aside as the allegations of money laundering were unfounded. The respondent maintained that the attachment was justified due to the appellant's involvement in scheduled offenses as per the Act. The Tribunal found that the material on record was sufficient to establish a case of money laundering, thereby upholding the attachment order. 2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, and Forgery: The appellant was accused of inflating the number of eligible persons for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by submitting forged documents, resulting in the illegal allotment of residential rooms and shops. The investigation revealed that the appellant, along with others, engaged in criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, leading to financial losses for the government. The Tribunal noted that the allegations were supported by evidence, including statements from government officials, which justified the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 3. Validity of the FIRs and ECIR in Light of Existing Civil Disputes: The appellant contended that the FIRs were not maintainable due to an ongoing civil dispute with M/s Chintan Life Spaces LLP. It was argued that the civil suit should take precedence over criminal proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that the FIRs and ECIR were based on criminal activities, independent of the civil dispute. The existence of a civil suit did not negate the validity of the FIRs or the ECIR, as both addressed different aspects of the appellant's conduct. 4. Compliance with Statutory Timelines for Confirming the Provisional Attachment Order: The appellant argued that the order confirming the attachment was passed beyond the statutory 180-day period, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on legal proceedings, referencing the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods during the pandemic. It was determined that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded from the computation of the 180-day period, thereby validating the timing of the confirmation order. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not contravene the Supreme Court's directives, which extended the limitation period due to extraordinary circumstances. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming the legality of the attachment order and the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the invalidity of the FIRs, the influence of civil disputes on criminal proceedings, or the alleged lapse of the attachment order due to statutory timelines. The decision underscored the adherence to the Supreme Court's guidance on limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
