9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 185 - AT - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - provisional attachment of the property of the appellant - time limitation - impugned order was passed after a period of 190 days from the date of PAO - attachment of property when appellant is not an accused - Acquisition of property by using proceeds of crime or not. Time limitation - HELD THAT - In the instant case attachment order was confirmed beyond the period of 180 days. Thus by operation of section 5(3) of the Act of 2002 it may cease to exist under normal circumstance. We have been deliberately referred to normal circumstance because small period intervening was affected by Covid-19 which was from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and if the period aforesaid is excluded the order of confirmation is within 180 days. Reasons of exclusion of the period is due to Covid-19 and in light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo-moto Petition No. 03/2020vide order dated 10.01.2022 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER . The Apex Court s order is to exclude the period of Covid-19 from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of litigation and even termination of the proceedings. The issue was discussed and decided in the case of Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Bhubaneswar 2024 (10) TMI 227 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI where it was held that the period from 15.03.2022 to 28.02.2022 has to excluded because till 28.02.2022 has been excluded by the Apex Court for termination of proceedings and from 1.03.2022 the impugned order was passed within 180 days. Attachment of property when appellant is not an accused - HELD THAT - The issue was elaborately discussed by this Tribunal in the case of Sant Singh versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Chandigarh 2024 (8) TMI 523 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI after referring to the section 5(1) of the act of 2002 and the judgement of the Apex court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB) . It was held if a person is in possession of the proceeds of crime then a property can be attached even if he is not named as an accused. Acquisition of property by using proceeds of crime or not - HELD THAT - The appellant failed to prove the payment of Rs. 14, 00, 000/- to main accused Shri Shankarlal Khandelwal in cash. While analyzing the account of Syndicate Bank it was found that the appellant received Rs. 5, 00, 000/- while transfer of Rs. 14, 00, 000/- was received through RTGS from Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal the accused in the case. It was thereafter paid to M/s Shri GovindKripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. which was again a company owned by the accused and thereby proceeds of crime was routed and laundered through the appellant. In the light of statement of the appellant under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and the material on record appellant could not show the source to acquire the property in question which otherwise was out of the proceeds of crime. The transfer of money by Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal to the appellant was to make tainted money to be untainted and thereby it was got transferred by layering of the proceeds of crime. Conclusion - i) The 180-day period for confirming a PAO can exclude time affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. ii) Attachment under the PMLA is not limited to properties held by accused individuals; it extends to any person in possession of proceeds of crime. iii) The property in question is acquired using funds that are proceeds of crime justifying its attachment. Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The Tribunal considered the following core legal issues: 1. Whether the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was confirmed within the statutory period of 180 days as required by Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), considering the exclusion of time due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 2. Whether the property of an individual not named as an accused can be attached under the PMLA if it is deemed to be "proceeds of crime." 3. Whether the property in question, Villa No. 60, was acquired using proceeds of crime, thereby justifying its attachment under the PMLA. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: The appellant argued that the PAO was confirmed beyond the 180-day period, thus ceasing to exist by operation of law under Section 5(3) of the PMLA. The Tribunal examined the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the computation of this period. The Supreme Court, in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, had extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the pandemic. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, to affirm that the period affected by Covid-19 should be excluded in computing the 180 days. Consequently, the confirmation of the PAO was deemed timely. Issue 2: The appellant contended that his property could not be attached since he was not named as an accused. The Tribunal referred to Section 5 of the PMLA, which allows attachment of property in possession of any person, not necessarily an accused, if it is believed to be proceeds of crime. The Tribunal cited the case of Sant Singh v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which clarified that attachment could extend to property held by individuals not named as accused if they possess proceeds of crime. Issue 3: The appellant argued that the property was not acquired through proceeds of crime, claiming it was purchased with disclosed sources. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant admitted in a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA that Rs. 14,00,000/- of the purchase amount was received from Shankar Lal Khandelwal, an accused, and was thus proceeds of crime. The appellant failed to substantiate the claim of receiving Rs. 14,00,000/- as a loan repayment. The Tribunal concluded that the property was acquired using proceeds of crime, as the funds were transferred from an accused and used to purchase the property, thus laundering the proceeds of crime. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal upheld the attachment of the property, finding the appellant in possession of proceeds of crime. It emphasized that:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the attachment of the property as compliant with the legal framework and supported by evidence of money laundering activities.
|
