9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020; (ii) that no final report has been filed in the FIR for the predicate offence, for the past nine years; (iii) that even M. Srinivas Reddy, the de-facto complainant in the FIR for the predicate offence, was sought to be arrested as an accused in connection with the ECIR, but the application of the Enforcement Directorate for remand was rejected; (iv) that the appellant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been in jail from 26.09.2022; and (v) that the relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which we have extracted in the preceding paragraph, gives room for a valid argument that the second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name M/s Farmax India Limited hereinafter referred to as Farmax . The gist of the complaint was, that Farmax availed the services of the accused in raising Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), to the tune of USD 71.09 millions equivalent to INR 318 crores; that though the accused raised the said amount, they transferred to Farmax only a sum of USD 0.4 millions equivalent to INR 2.20 crores; and that upon enquiry with the bank, the complainant company came to know that the accused has misappropriated the balance amount by forging the signatures, with the help of the pledged documents. 4. It is relevant to note here that the aforesaid FIR was registered, pursuant to an Order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from 06.10.2022 to 11.10.2022. 8. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate filed a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of PMLA against four individuals and two entities, namely, (i) Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, (ii) Shri Morthala Malla Reddy, (iii) Shri Arun Panchariya, (iv) Shri Mukesh Chauradiya, (v) M/s La Richesse Advisors Private limited represented by Shri Sanjay Aggarwal and (vi) M/s Vintage FZE, UAE represented by Shri Arun Panchariya. The sum and substance of the complaint was, that Farmax availed the services of the appellant herein and the other accused in raising GDRs to the tune of USD 71.09 millions equivalent to INR 318 crores; that Vintage FZE, a wholly owned entity of Arun Panchariya solely subscribed to these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and also helped in transferring the funds from the account of Farmax with EURAM Bank to the Farmax subsidiary, namely, M/s. Farmax International FZE in UAE. 10. In the background of the above facts, it is contended by Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel: (i) that the appellant has been languishing in jail from 26.09.2022, without any charge-sheet having been filed against him in the predicate offence for the past more than nine years; (ii) that even Srinivas Reddy at whose instance a FIR was registered way back in the year 2013 for the predicate offence was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, but the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate for his remand was rejected by the Court; (iii) that the appellant is a Charter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lead Arranger (Prospect Capital) and the company's legal advisor ( Fox Mandal ). Although, Fox Mandal acted as counsel to Farmax, the email communications indicate that its role was limited to preparing a due diligence report and the Listing Prospectus ( Prospectus ) to be filed with the Luxembourg Exchange. b) Sanjay Agarwal acted as an intermediary for almost all communications with the various participants, and gave instructions to M/s Farmax India Limited before and after the offering. Notwithstanding that Agarwal was the central figure who gave instructions to Farmax which was duly followed by Morthala Srinivasa Reddy. (A-1) being a qualified Chartered Accountant, had experience of working with stock exchange filings related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the predicate offence, for the past nine years; (iii) that even M. Srinivas Reddy, the de-facto complainant in the FIR for the predicate offence, was sought to be arrested as an accused in connection with the ECIR, but the application of the Enforcement Directorate for remand was rejected; (iv) that the appellant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been in jail from 26.09.2022; and (v) that the relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which we have extracted in the preceding paragraph, gives room for a valid argument that the second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied qua the appellant. Therefore, the continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
