9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said case was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India by the Enforcement Directorate in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore [ 2022 (11) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT ]. Therefore, the ground raised on restrospectivity by the petitioner deserves no merit consideration - involvement in corrupt activities itself is Proceeds of Crime within the definition of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. That being the scope of pre-amended Section 3, question of discharging the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the Proceeds of Crime after 2009, is untenable and is rejected. The Trial Court considered both the pre-amended Section 3 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT ], the scope of Section 2(1)(u) in conjunction with Section 3 has been considered by the Trial Court in a right direction as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings made by the Trial Court in the order impugned. The impugned order stands confirmed and accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. - Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unit, Air Cargo Unit Complex, Chennai, under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and under Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the trial is pending. 6. ECIR No.07/2012 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate on 18.07.2012 based on the FIR dated 23.11.2009 filed by the CBI. The provisional attachment of Rs. 26,00,000/- seized form the 4th accused was completed on 28.03.2014 which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 27.08.2014. 7. The provisional attachment, of Rs. 8,00,000/- seized from the 1st accused and Rs. 7,60,000/- seized from the 5th accused, was completed on 28.03.2017, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 02.08.2017. 8. On 11.10.2017, a complaint was made under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), against K.Baskar (Superintendent of Customs), Pallabh Sinha (Superintendent of Customs), B.Pugezenthi (Superintendent of Customs), N.Giriprasad (Preventive Officer), Jagmohan Meena (Preventive Officer), G.Kumar (Agent), S.Raj Kumar (Agent) and T.P. Rajmohan (Agent) in CC No.19 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Special Court for CBI cases, Chennai. 9. In the year 2021 discharge pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actice will fall under the ambit of Section 3 of PMLA or not, has been replied by the respondents as under :- Reliance is placed on the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, had stated as follows: 467. (v)(a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word and preceding the expression projecting or claiming as or ; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. (b) Independent of the above, we are clearly of the view that the expression and occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as or , to give full play to the said provision so as to include every process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act-for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the mere generation of proceeds of crime is not sufficient to constitute the offence of money-laundering, is actually preposterous. As we could see from Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. If a person takes a bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. So, the activity of acquisition takes place. Even if he does not retain it but uses it, he will be guilty of the offence of money- laundering, since use is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3 . Admittedly the Petitioner herein had fixed the bribe amount and received illegal gratification through Shri G Kumar for the fraudulent clearance of goods in commercial quantity in the guise of unaccompanied baggage during his tenure in the UB (Air) Unit. Hence, mere acquisition of bribe amounts to proceeds of crime and thereby falls under section 3 of PMLA. Hence, such a contention is ought to be rejected. 20. Pertinently, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Padmanabhan Kishore Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, supported the views raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds as under:- 14. The further question to be answered is : whether the role played by respondent could come within the purview of Section 3 of the PML Act? 15. Said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be guilty of offence of money- laundering. 22. Therefore, the ground raised on restrospectivity by the petitioner deserves no merit consideration. Even as per the pre-amended Section 3 of PMLA, i.e., Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist, or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime and projecting it as untainted property, shall be guilty of offence of money laundering . Therefore, involvement in corrupt activities itself is Proceeds of Crime within the definition of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. That being the scope of pre-amended Section 3, question of discharging the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the Proceeds of Crime after 2009, is untenable and is rejected. 23. The Tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
