9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Raghu Bernard/ A30. It is further alleged that A22/Suresh Kumar, the petitioner herein under active connivance with, A1/Sudalaimuthu, forged and fabricated Chennai Port Trust profile, Board resolutions, Authorization letters, bearing specimen signatures, and Rubber Stamps of Chennai Port Trust Officials, Employee ID cards, etc., for the purpose of opening fake Current Account in the name of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund with Indian Bank, Koyembedu Branch, by way of impersonation by A4/Ganesh Natarajan and thereby, facilitated the Port Trust Fund into different accounts and misappropriated the same. The further allegation is that the petitioner / A22 also indulged in the act of money laundering. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/ A22 has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation levelled against him is nothing but imagination and not supported by any material on record to substantiate a prima-facie case. He also relied on Section 3 of Prevention of Money laundering Act and submitted that the ingredients of the said Section would not apply to the case of the petitioner. Nor he is liable for the penal provision under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to Chennai Port Trust against the investment made by them. Furthermore, as per the statement given by A1/Sudalaimuthu, recorded under Section 15 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, in the Central prison, Puzhal, in which inter-alia, he stated that as per the petitioner's instruction only, he downloaded the documents from the Port whatsapp and after downloading he handed over all the documents to the petitioner. Further, he also stated that, he downloaded the KYC document of Chennai Port Trust and handed over the same to the petitioner near Porur, for handling over the same to A1/Sudalai Muthu. 5. Knowing fully well that he has indulging, in creating all the fake documents and using the forged document, FD Accounts were created in the name of Chennai Port Trust and subsequently, mis-appropriated the terms of Deposits and were in enjoyment and possession of the crime by considering Fixed original and projected and claimed as untainted and as such, there appears to be a prima-facie case of Money Laundering, as for the offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money laundering Act, he is punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money laundering Act . The offence of mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney. Further, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that during the PMLA investigation in the above case, it was revealed that the petitioner herein was actively involved in the offence of money laundering. It was revealed that as per instructions from Sh.T.V.K.Krishna Rao, during the last of week of July, 2009, Sh.T.Arun along with Sh.G.Padmanabhan, Sh.Suresh Kumar/petitioner and his friend Sh.Rajesh Sai Ram approached ICICI bank and opened Savings Bank Account in the name of Sh.G.Padmanabhan. In the above said case in C.C.No.4 of 2014, this petitioner is arrayed as A14 therein and he knowingly indulged in the act of Money Laundering and directly attempted himself and knowingly involved in the process connected with the proceeds of the Crime along with A1 and other accused. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits. 7. Considering both sides submissions, it is seen that the foremost contention raised on the side of the petitioner is that there are no materials on record, but he appoint this petitioner that he was activity indulged in Money Laundering activities, but, he was falsely implicated under Section 3 of Prevention of Money laundering Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in this offence are sought to be roped in. An important ingredient of the offence is that these persons must be knowingly or actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime and "proceeds of crime" is defined under the Act, by Section 2(1) (u) thereof, to mean any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence (which is referred to in our judgment as the predicate offence). Thus, whosoever is involved as aforesaid, in a process or activity connected with "proceeds of crime" as defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acquiring or using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property." 8. In this case, Raveendranatha Reddy, who was the Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy under Section 50 of PMLA in the office of Directorate of Enforecement, Chennai-I, Zonal Office, Chennai, also speaks about the involvement of the petitioner herein, which reads as follows: Answer 3: ..... During 2019-2020, Shri. Vaidhyanathan requested me to arrange some loan to his friend Shri. Sureshkumar by pledging the document, subsequently, Shri. Deivasittharasan @ Chitrarasu introduced Shri. Sureshkumar at Adyar Ananda Bhavan Hotel, Chromepet. I tried to arrange loan for Shri.Sureshkumar but the financier refused for the problem in the property papers. Then, Shri Vaidhyanathan asked us to pledge the Audi Car which is in the name of Shri.Sureshkumar towards the loan but the financier refused to give loan as the Audi car was already under finance. Due to several meetings Shri.Sureshkumar becomes closer to us. One day when we having taking tea at Adayar Anand Bhavan at Chrompet, Shri.Sureshkumar @ Suresh asked me whether I know any trust account to deposit the fund and who allows us for withdrawing the same in cash later, for which he offered commission. Then I said that I knew one Shri.Baskar, who is having an office at Anna Nagar and also told him that he is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor, petitioner had not disclosed the two facts pertaining to the end-use of mis-appropriated amount, which is the proceeds of the crime, and as of now Rs.7 crores were recovered and nearly about Rs.35 crores is yet to be recovered by the investigating agency and crores of rupees of Port trust which is a public money, were mis-appropriated by the petitioner /A22 along with other accused persons. Therefore, the authority relied on by the petitioner's counsel to show that the role of the petitioner is restricted only in respect of creation of the alleged fabricated fake FD receipts, as such is unsustainable one. As per the investigation, he was actively involved, not only creating the fake FD receipts, but also with intention to transferred the amounts to other Accounts along with prime accused /A1. Considering antecedence of the petitioner that he had already involved in Bank fraud case during the year 2009 in FIR.No.RC.14/E/2009- CBI-EOW/Chennai dated 04.09.2009, which was registered by the CBI, EOW, Chennai. In that case, Rs.25 Crores belonging to M/s.Northern Coal fields Limited (M/s.NCL), were fraudulently transfered by one Krishnan Rao to the Current Account No.3014563150 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 14. The complaint filed under Sections 44 & 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for Commission of Offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 read with Section 70 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Public Prosecutor said that, in the instant case, as discussed above, the proceedings of the Directorate of Enforcement had clearly reflected that the respondent / Police have collected sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act . 15. Statement recorded by Assistant Director under Section 50 PMLA for this petitioner also enclosed in counter statement by the respondent. The active participation on the part of this accused also primafacie reveals that he, knowing well the purpose of creation of the fake documents he has involved in the present offence, as stated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioner/A22 is one of the main person and he played active role with the prime accused person, so the authorities relied on Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.29533 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015, dated 27.01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
