9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LA-12465/MUM/2023 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-6221/MUM/2023, MP-PMLA-14456/MUM/2023 (A. D. ) MP-PMLA-12467/MUM/2023 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-6222/MUM/2023, MP-PMLA-14457/MUM/2023 (A. D. ) MP-PMLA-12469/MUM/2023 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-6223/MUM/2023, MP-PMLA-14459/MUM/2023 (A. D. ), MP-PMLA-12473/MUM/2023 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-6225/MUM/2023, MP-PMLA-14460/MUM/2023 (A. D. ) MP-PMLA-12475/MUM/2023 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-6226/MUM/2023 - - - PMLA - Challenge to provisional attachment order - appellant submits that prosecution complaint has not been filed against anyone which includes the accused named in the ECIR despite expiry of 365 days from the date of the impugned order, thus, the attachment and so the order should lapse - HELD THAT:- The freezing/ attachment would continue during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-3090/MUM/2024 (Exemp.) FPA-PMLA-1388/MUM/2024 and FPA-PMLA-6284/MUM/2023 JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI AND SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA For the Appellants : Mr. Jayant Kumar, Advocate (for Sr. no. 1-2) Mr. Pradeep Jain Mr. Shubham Kr. Jha, Advocates (for Sr. no. 3-9) Mr. Naveen Malhotra Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Advocates (for Sr. no. 10) Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra, Advocate (for Sr. no. 11) For the Respondent : Mr. Mrinal Kumar, Advocate ORDER By this batch of appeals, a challenge has been made to the order dated 23rd May, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution complaint has not been filed against anyone which includes the accused named in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 showing concern on retention of betelnut finding it to be perishable goods and therefore a direction was given for early disposal of the appeal. The appeal remained pending to address certain issues but now the fact remains that despite the expiry of 365 days, the prosecution complaint has not been filed. It has its own consequence in the light of the Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 (in short The Act ), the provision is quoted hereunder: 8. Adjudication. (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub- section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub- section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an 1 [offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering. (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money- laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under subsection (1) of section 5 or retention of property or 3 [record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and 1. Subs. by Act 21 of 2009, s. 5, for offence under section 3 (w.e.f. 1-6-2009). 2. Ins. by Act 2 of 2013, s. 6 (w.e.f. 15-2-2013). 3. Subs. by s. 6, ibid., for certain words and figures (w.e.f. 15-2-2013). 13 record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government. (6) Where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it. (7) Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or having commenced but could not be concluded, the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... times, the respondent make argument that with sending a copy of ECIR is to be considered as pendency of the case in the competent court for the offence of Act of 2002. The argument was not accepted by this Tribunal rather a detailed judgement in the case of M/s Nadal Forex Pvt. Ltd. The interpretation of Section 8 was given therein and relevant paras of the judgement are quoted: It is argued that the words pendency of the proceeding relating to any offence under the Act would be with submission of the ECIR to the Court or any other proceeding before submission of the prosecution complaint. We find it to be an interpretation going contrary to the intent of the legislature. If the pendency of the proceedings in the Court is taken without comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
