9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son to believe, which must be recorded in writing. Such reason to believe must be formed on the basis of material(s) in his possession that any person is in possession of proceeds of crime and that such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed etc. Therefore the material in possession of the attaching authority must pertain to the above two aspects and on the basis of such materials he must form the reason to believe. In other words, the reason to believe must have a direct nexus or live link with the materials in possession pertaining to the above aspects. The expression reason to believe has been subjected to numerous judicial pronouncements. It is an expression of considerable import and finds place in a number of statutes - fiscal, penal etc. However, the expression reason to believe is not defined in the PMLA. But this expression is explained in Section 26 IPC as per which a person may be said to have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. In the context of Customs Act, 1962, it confers jurisdiction upon the proper officer to seize goods liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the said Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 3018697D held with RL360 Insurance Company Limited, UAE, including present status and valuation as well as details regarding source for the premium amounts paid for the above insurance policies. 4. By the Provisional Attachment Order No.11/2011 dated 25.11.2021 issued under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, respondent No.3 ordered provisional attachment of the above insurance policies, further ordering that those shall not be transferred, disposed, removed, parted with or otherwise dealt with, until or unless specifically permitted to do so by respondent No.3. 5. F.I.R. bearing No.RC-35-2011-A-0018 dated 17.08.2011 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Sri B.P.Acharya, IAS, Chairman Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and others for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 6. After completion of investigation, CBI filed charge sheet No.1 of 2012 dated 01.02.2012 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 409, 406, 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2018 being S.L.P. (Crl) (Dairy) No.29628 of 2018. By order dated 24.09.2018, the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned and notice was issued. It is stated that the said S.L.P. is still pending before the Supreme Court but no stay has been granted. 11. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint dated 12.04.2019 under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA' hereinafter) which was registered as Enforcement Case Investigation Report (ECIR) No.08/HZO/ 2011 before the Special Judge for Offences under the PMLA (PMLA Court). In this proceeding, petitioner was arrayed as accused No.12. Allegation against the petitioner was the same as in the CBI case: that petitioner had knowingly received USD 3,90,000 as part of excess amount paid towards purchase of villa plots. While USD 2,50,000 was returned back to Mr. Parthasarathy, USD 1,40,000 received from Mr. Challa Suresh was still with the petitioner. Thus, it was alleged that petitioner knowingly was a recipient of proceeds of crime. PMLA Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and issued process against the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intention of alienating the proceeds of crime and Sri Koneru Madhu was in the process of surrendering the insurance policies. 19. Summons under Section 50 of the PMLA were issued to Sri Koneru Madhu to explain the source of funds for the premia paid for the insurance policies because presently Sri Koneru Madhu is managing the said companies and has access to all the records of such companies. 20. Denying the allegation that issuance of summons is an attempt to overreach the orders of this Court, it is stated that complaint was filed by the Enforcement Directorate after thorough investigation and probing the role of Sri Koneru Madhu. 21. Again it is reiterated that while proceedings against Sri Koneru Madhu have been quashed, proceedings against Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad are still in vogue. Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad along with his wife Smt. Koneru Vimala Devi had assigned the insurance policies taken by them in favour of Sri Koneru Madhu in an attempt to alienate the assets acquired from the funds of entities in which proceeds of crime have been intermingled. Proceedings against Sri Koneru Madhu were quashed in June, 2021 and assigning/ transferring of the insurance p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ru Madhu immediately following quashing of prosecution against him is a deliberate attempt by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad to alienate the proceeds of crime. Thereby Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad had projected the proceeds of crime as legal monies and possession of the same by Sri Koneru Madhu constitutes the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. 26. Denying that there is any overreach of the orders of this Court, it is contended that it is Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad who along with his wife Smt. Koneru Vimala Devi who assigned/transferred assets in the form of insurance policies to Sri Koneru Madhu with the intention of alienation of assets, the source of which is suspected to be out of proceeds/funds of offshore entities in which the proceeds of crime have been allegedly intermingled. Further, under the PMLA the burden of proof is on the person in whose possession the proceeds of crime are found to prove that the subject properties have been obtained through legitimate sources. The insurance policies were taken through payment of premia by the companies in which proceeds of crime were intermingled and Sri Koneru Madhu is the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged proceeds of crime in the impugned Provisional Attachment Order. 31. Denying that petitioner had not submitted explanation to the impugned summons, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted response to the summons on 18.11.2021 requesting the respondents to withdraw the summons in view of quashing of proceedings against the petitioner by the High Court. That response was not considered by the respondents. Petitioner has denied the submissions of respondents that Section 173(8) CrPC is applicable to an investigation under the PMLA. Finally petitioner has contended that issuance of impugned summons and passing of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order attaching four insurance policies is clearly an abuse of the process of law. There is no material at all for respondent No.3 to have reason to believe that the insurance policies are proceeds of crime. It is further stated that as per complaint of the Enforcement Directorate an amount of Rs.96.01 crores is alleged to be the proceeds of crime collected from the sale of plots. Respondents have already issued Provisional Attachment Order No.3 of 2014 dated 21.11.2014 attaching assets worth Rs.96.01 crores which was alleged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the petitioner. 33. Mr. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel further submits that there are no new materials available with the respondents to exercise purported powers of further investigation. As per the impugned Provisional Attachment Order, the basis of issuance of summons is the ostensible discovery of certain insurance policies held by the petitioner. Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the premia of these insurance policies is being paid from one M/s.Rescom Holdings (earlier Trimex International FZE). The connection or link between the main offence and the impugned summons is based entirely on the alleged statement that the co-accused has diverted funds into M/s.Rescom Holdings. However in the entire complaint of the Enforcement Directorate qua the petitioner which has since been quashed, the only reference to alleged diversion of funds by co-accused to the petitioner's account are deposits made by two plot owners into the account of the petitioner. However this Court on two different proceedings did not find any criminal culpability insofar petitioner is concerned. 34. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned summons and the impugned Provisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 6. Seema Garg v. Deputy Director of Enforcement 2020 SCC Online P H 738 7. HDFC Bank Limited v. Government of India Manu/BH/0417/2021 36. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Prasad Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate appearing for the respondents stoutly defended the impugned summons and the impugned Provisional Attachment Order. He submits that respondents have acted within the four corners of the law in issuing the summons and thereafter passed the Provisional Attachment Order. According to him, the present writ petition is premature in as much as validity of the attachment is yet to be decided by the adjudicating authority. Once reference is made to the adjudicating authority, the said authority will adjudicate after hearing the petitioner and thereafter pass an order recording a finding as to whether all or any of the properties mentioned in the referral notice are involved in money laundering. Therefore, viewed in the above context, the writ petition is premature. The interim order passed by this Court may be vacated and the adjudicating authority should be allowed to decide as to whether the insurance policies are proceeds of crime or no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uled offence. The aforesaid expression being relevant, the same is extracted hereunder: 2(1)(u) proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that proceeds of crime include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 39.3 Scheduled offence is defined in Section 2(1)(y). Scheduled offence means (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is one crore rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. 40. Chapter III of PMLA comprises of Sections 5 to 11 which deal with attachment, adjudication and confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceeding thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order shall be counted. (2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period as may be prescribed. (3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or on the date of an order made under [sub-section (3)] of Section 8, whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, person interested , in relation to any immovable property, includes all persons claiming or entitled to claim any interest in the property. (5) The Director or any other officer who provisionally attaches a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashing the charge against him in C.C.No.6 of 2012. In the order dated 05.01.2018, this Court summed up the charge against the petitioner by the CBI in the following manner: 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that a Joint Venture Company by name M/s Emaar Hills Township Private Limited (EHTPL-A3) was formed in 2003 between Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai(Emaar-A2) and M/s APIIC to develop 353 acres of land in Gachibowli in the ratio of 74:26 in profits in 2006. M/s Emaar, the partner of M/s EHPTL without the knowledge of APIIC in violation of agreement of various Government rules entered into partnership with another sister company known as M/s EMAAR MGF (A4) to develop the same piece of land in Gachibowli in the ratio of 75:25 in revenue i.e. M/s EMAAR MGF-A4 will hold 75% interest and M/s EHTPL- A3 will hold 25%. Hence accordingly, the stake of M/s APIIC in this project has changed to 6.5% of revenue as opposed to 26% in profits. By way of reduction of share of M/s APIIC to 6.5%, their partner M/s EMAAR MGF alone was allegedly benefited about Rs.2,500 crores. M/s Emaar MGF sold the plots for the villas at Rs.5,000/- per yard from 2006 onwards. It is alleged that M/s Emaa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminal breach of trust and cheating and to commit the offences there was a criminal conspiracy and as part of their nefarious plan, the excess money over above the documented price of Rs.5,000/- per Sq. Yd was collected of an amount of Rs.96,01,75,000/- by Shri T.Ranga Rao and Shri Rajendra Prasad from about 82 or so villa plot buyers in cash only; however two of such buyers viz., Shri P.S.Parthasarathy and Shri Challa Suresh, since deposited in to the account No.8900056630, US $ 250,000 and US $ 140,000 respectively towards part of excess payment in the bank accounts of the petitioner- A13-Shri Madhu Koneru (S/o Shri Koneru Rajendra Prasad-A6) maintained at Dubai and Shri T.Ranga Rao, Shri P.S.Parthasarathy and Shri Y.V.Prasad in their respective statements U/s 164 CrPC confirmed that said amount was part of the sale consideration paid over above Rs.5,000/- per Sq. Yd, even that was refunded by Shri Madhu Koneru on 14.10.2011 into the account of Shri P.S.Parthasarathy as if it was a return of loan amount, after registration of this case which is sought to be inferred as an attempt to give a different colour to this transaction as an after thought; leave apart the excess amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner was in any way privy to any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC with any other accused. On a thorough consideration of the materials on record, this Court held as follows: 15(c). Here coming to the case on hand, it is not even a case of separate conspiracy between A6 and A13, the father and son, from entire case of prosecution, for not a version that with that separate conspiracy they hatched any plan to commit another offence or part of any offence in any larger conspiracy. Even for arguments sake taken as such, it at best when shows A6-asked the two buyers to remit the excess amount into the bank account of his son- petitioner-A13-Madhu at Dubai, for none of the statements of Ranga Rao, Parthasarthy and Suresh show the remittances were made into the bank account of the petitioner-A13 at the instructions of petitioner-A13 or that it was petitioner-A13 that furnished the bank account, there is any privy of him to it? There is thus a force in the contention of the quash petitioner-A13 that there is every possibility for A6-Rajendraprasad knowing the bank account of petitioner -A13 being his son in furnishing said bank account in asking by him(A6) or thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately returned to the two, but allowed to remain in his account as an alleged offence, which is when no way suffice to any prudence to say same was in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to draw any inference of the alleged conspiracy. Undisputedly from the settled legal position, there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. For that the acts and conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict. If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. what is essential of the Agreement as a primary fact is proved from the prosecution material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While deliberating upon question Nos.1 and 2 as extracted above, this Court adverted to the accusation made against the petitioner in the complaint filed by the respondents before the Special Court which may be extracted as under: L. Role of Sri Koneru Madhu (Accused No. 12) S/o Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad in Money Laundering Offence: i) He is an NRI and his father Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad was a Director in EHTPL. He received an amount of USD 1,40,000 from Sri Challa Suresh and USD 2,50,000 from Sri PS Parthasarathy, who have purchased villa plots in EHTPL, as part of excess amount received from villa plot buyers. ii) Later he returned the amount of USD 2,50,000 to Sri PS Parthasarathy in the guise of investment colour to the amount received by him. iii) However, USD 1,40,000 received from Sri Challa Suresh is still lying with him iv) Hence, he is the recipient of part of proceeds of crime and still holding some of it knowingly. v) Thus, Sri Koneru Madhu knowingly received USD 3, 90,000 and involved in the process of acquisition, possession of PoC thus directly involved in the offence of 'Money Launder' in terms of Sec. 3 of PMLA, 2002 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner with the offence under sec. 120B and Sec. 420 IPC. This Court in Crl.P.No 3935 of 2016, wherein the present petitioner was figured as Accused No. 13 made a clear observation vide Para 17 at page 40 as below: From the above, when it is not a case of the Petitioner-A13 was privy to any conspiracy with M/s Emmar Properties, Public Joint Stock Company (PJSC), Dubai, from the time of their entering the MOU, much less even party to agreement between M/s Emmar and its subsidiaries and M/s Stylish Homes and not even privy with Ranga Rao-Director of M/s Stylish Homes and nothing even of any material with substance to say any privy between A6-Rajendra Prasad and the Petitioner-A13, leave apart as discussed supra even any ting to infer between father and son of any knowledge of the son about his father was privy with others in any offence and not prevented, that no way establish any criminal conspiracy to mulct the petitioner as A13 with other of them, even taken for arguments sake of his version of the amount remitted by Parthasarathy was a loan and the amount remitted by Suresh was investment in any business are untrue, that by itself but for one of several circumstances to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner-A13 in Charge sheet filed by CBI that no offences are made out under sec. 120B, 409 and 420 IPC and quashed the charge sheet against him. This Court is called to examine the same facts which were considered by this Court in Crl P. No.3935 of 2016, in this case which are arisen out of the Complaint filed by the ED under PML Act. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent is that this case is independent and has no relevance with the result of Crl.P.No. 3935 of 2016 is lacking force and logic because the ED can proceed only for those offences which are 'scheduled offences' under the IPC. This Court, on facts cannot take a different opinion from the one taken by another co-ordinate bench of this Court. 52. Upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, this Court concluded as under: Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it is redundant for this court to discuss the facts and law on the same points once again in this petition. Therefore, this Court finds reasons to accept the contentions of Sri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that according to the findings in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. Therefore issuing summons to the petitioner in the same ECIR was contrary to the above two judgments of this Court. Accordingly petitioner requested respondent No.2 to withdraw the summons. 58. That brings us to the Provisional Attachment Order No.11/2021, dated 25.11.2021 passed by respondent No.3 brushing aside the above reply. It is seen that respondent No.3 considered the following while passing the impugned order: (i) Copy of FIR No.RC-35-2011-A-0018 dt. 17.08.2011 registered by CBI, Hyderabad against M/s Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd. and Others. (ii) Copy of Charge Sheet No. 01/2012 dated 01.02.2012 (CC No.06/2012) in FIR No.RC-35-2011-A-0018 dt.17.08.2011 filed before Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. (iii) Copy of Supplementary Charge Sheet No.05/2012 dated 23.04.2012 (CC.No. 06/2012) in FIR No.RC-35- 2011-A-0018 dt.17.08.2011 filed before Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. (iv) ECIR No.08/HZO/2011 dated 30.08.2011 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office, Hyderabad. (v) Statement dated 31.08.2021 given by Shri Koneru Pradeep under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Islamic Bank and Emirates NBD. 6.5 He also furnished the details of insurance policies held in his name outside India. He informed that he had five insurance policies outside India, out of which one was being surrendered; and the premia for all these policies were paid by his brother Shri Madhu Koneru, from his business income, as a gift or being paid by M/s Rescom Holdings, Dubai and that 4 out of 5 insurance policies have completed their tenure before 6 years. 6.6 It is pertinent to mention that when questioned to furnish the source of funds utilized for purchasing the above insurance policies, Mr. Pradeep Koneru has stated that the premium for the above mentioned 5 insurance policies were being paid by his elder brother, Shri Madhu Koneru, from his business income, as a gift or being paid by M/s Rescom Holdings, Dubai and that 4 out of 5 insurance policies have completed their tenure before 6 years. He also furnished a copy of HSBC Bank, UAE, cheque dated 01/04/2006 for an amount of AED 13,601,30 paid as premium to M/s Friends Provident International, UK from the bank account of M/s Trimex International FZE (M/s Rescom Holdings) as documentary evidence. 6.7 Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Authority or court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering . 6.11 The assets in question are matured insurance policies which are located in UAE. Once their existence has been revealed to the investigating department, it gave opportunity to the respondents to explain the source of the funds. The beneficial owners have provided no evidence to establish the genuinity of the source of funds and if no action is taken by invocation of section 5 of the PMLA, there is a possibility that the impugned funds may be layered and alienated to frustrate any proceedings relating to confiscation of such suspect proceeds of crime. Therefore, it is necessary to safeguard the tainted assets from alienation. 61. Thus on the above basis respondent No.3 held that he had reasons to believe that Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched with other accused persons has infused the proceeds of crime into the company floated by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad, Dubai which was subsequently transferred to the name of his son Sri Koneru Madhu. Respondent No.3 further recorded that he has reasons to believe that Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason to believe must be formed on the basis of material(s) in his possession that any person is in possession of proceeds of crime and that such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed etc. Therefore the material in possession of the attaching authority must pertain to the above two aspects and on the basis of such materials he must form the reason to believe. In other words, the reason to believe must have a direct nexus or live link with the materials in possession pertaining to the above aspects. 66. The expression reason to believe has been subjected to numerous judicial pronouncements. It is an expression of considerable import and finds place in a number of statutes - fiscal, penal etc. However, the expression reason to believe is not defined in the PMLA. But this expression is explained in Section 26 IPC as per which a person may be said to have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. In the context of Customs Act, 1962, it confers jurisdiction upon the proper officer to seize goods liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the said Act. 67. Under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief. To that extent, action of the Income Tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 is open to challenge in a court of law. 69. Supreme Court in Sheo Nath Singh (supra) held that there can be no manner of doubt that the words reason to believe suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income Tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income Tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief. Court can always examine this aspect though sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court. 70. In Income Tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 3 SCC 757 : AIR 1976 SC 1753 : (1976) 103 ITR 437, Supreme Court held that the grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment must have a material bearing on the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to believe has to independently apply his mind. It cannot be a mechanical reproduction of the words in the statute. When an authority judicially reviewing such a decision peruses such reason to believe, it must be apparent that the officer penning the reasons had applied his mind to the materials available on record and has on that basis arrived at his reason to believe; the process of thinking of the officer must be discernible. The reasons have to be made explicit. It is only the reasons that can enable the reviewing authority to discern how the officer formed his reason to believe. 73. Having examined the contours of the expression reason to believe, we may mention that the offence of money laundering is not an independent or autonomous offence but is dependent on commission of a predicate offence. In other words an offence under the PMLA is not a standalone offence. It is relatable to commission or an offshoot of a scheduled offence. In so far the petitioner is concerned, as noticed above, there is no charge of scheduled offence against him. 74. In so far the affidavit of the respondents is concerned, two distinct things are discernible. Firstly, it is contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds later brought out. It was succinctly put that 'orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older'. 77. On the above principle the explanation given by the respondents in the affidavit cannot be accepted. However, the affidavit is a give away in the sense that it is a clear admission on the part of the respondents that the provisional attachment of insurance policies is based on suspicion that those may have been obtained through the proceeds of crime of Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad which is untenable and impermissible. 78. That apart, it is trite that for allegation of money laundering against one person, property belonging to another person cannot be attached. Patna High Court in HDFC Bank Limited (supra) held that the property derived from legitimate source cannot be attached on the ground that the property derived from a scheduled offence is not available for attachment. It was held that the expression 'proceeds of crime' would be attracted only when the money launder appears to have committed any other scheduled offence in addition to the offence under enquiry/investigation and the property was derived as a result of the activity in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
