2024 (12) TMI 1146 - AT - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - challenge to provisional attachment order on the ground of time limitation - challenge to the order has been made mainly in reference to section 5 (3) of the Act of 2002 on the ground that the order of confirmation of provisional attachment order is subsequent to the period of 180 days, thus it should lapse - criminal conspiracy - forging of licenses - attachment of joint property. Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order beyond 180 days should result in its lapse under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? - HELD THAT - The impugned orders were passed during the period of Covid-19. Both the orders were passed in the year 2021 which was the period of Covid-19. The Supreme Court extended the period for termination of proceeding under any statute. Whether the attached property being a joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidates the attachment order? - HELD THAT - There are no material on record to show that the property attached to be a joint property and in any case, if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the property attached is a joint property, the challenge to the order should have been made by the party holding the property with joint share. The appeal is not preferred by anyone else than the appellant - this ground cannot be accepted as well. Thus, there are no case to cause interference in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order beyond 180 days should result in its lapse under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Whether the attached property being a joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidates the attachment order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order Beyond 180 Days:

The appellant challenged the confirmation of the provisional attachment order on the grounds that it was confirmed beyond the statutory period of 180 days as stipulated under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that the order should lapse due to this delay. However, the respondent countered this argument by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the computation of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This exclusion was reiterated in the case of Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited and was elaborated upon by the Telangana High Court in Hygro Chemicals Pharmtek Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Tribunal, referencing these judgments, concluded that the period affected by Covid-19 should be excluded from the 180-day computation, thereby validating the confirmation of the attachment order. The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court's directive was to prevent hardships due to the pandemic, which justified the extension of timelines for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding the lapse of the attachment order due to the delay in confirmation.

2. Attachment of Joint Property Without Notice to Joint Holder:

The appellant further contended that the attached property was jointly owned, and the attachment was made without notifying the joint holder, thus rendering the order invalid. The respondent argued that no evidence was provided to substantiate the claim of joint ownership. Moreover, the respondent pointed out that if the property was indeed jointly owned, the joint holder should have independently challenged the attachment order. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was only filed by the appellant and not by any joint holder, which weakened the claim of joint ownership. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any material evidence or an independent challenge by the joint holder, the argument regarding joint ownership could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's second ground for challenging the attachment order.

Conclusion:

After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It upheld the confirmation of the provisional attachment order, ruling that the extension of the timeline due to the Covid-19 pandemic was applicable, and found no substantial proof to support the claim of joint ownership of the attached property. The Tribunal concluded that there was no case for interference with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →