9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existing. All those facts are relevant in the light of the allegation against the appellant and unusual practice by which Prabir Das having share of 10% transferred huge sum in favour of the firm.
Conclusion - i) The attachment of the bank accounts of M/s SKP Enterprises was justified under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. ii) The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of legitimate sources for the funds, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2002. We are not required to further go deep on the allegation, otherwise it has come on record that the "proceeds of crime" had been laundered by Partha Chatterjee and his associates by creating new entities. The money was routed through those entities though in between a sum of Rs. 21.90 Crores were seized from the premises of Arpita Mukherjee. The statements of dummy Directors of various companies floated at the instance of accused were recorded. It was revealed that in those companies, the people having meagre means of living were exploited and made Directors. They were forced to sign on the papers without their consent or knowledge. Those companies were floated with the sole aim to launder the tainted funds acquired from the criminal activity of selling jobs in lieu of money. A cash amount of Rs.27.90 Cores was found at the registered address of a company and the dummy Directors had no knowledge of it. 5. The statements of Manoj Jain and Kamal Singh Bhutoria were recorded. They said to have been working on the instructions of Partha Chatterjee who utilized the services of the two intermediaries in order to install dummy Directors in the Company. It was apart from M/s Ananta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though Krishna Chandra Adhikary was authorized signatory of the firm but he was having no idea about the business and transaction of the firm. In fact, Kalyanmay Bhattacharya used the funds of his father-in-law Partha Chatterjee out of the proceeds of crime and infused three proxy partners, namely, Krishna Chandra Adhikary, Subhamay Bhattacharya and Prabir Das. It was only to project tainted money to be untainted. The three dummy partners named above were having no idea about the working of the firm and otherwise Prabir Das was having only 10% of the share and 90% stakes were with the other partners who have not challenged the attachment of the bank accounts of the firm. The Show Cause Notice was not contested by them. In view of the above, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment of the property finding it to be the proceeds of crime. Argument of the counsel for the appellant 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that attachment of the bank accounts of the firm has been made having no nexus with crime. The firm has not been named as accused in the FIR registered in compliance of the order of the Calcutta High Court. In view of the above, attachment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of crime generated by Mr. Partha Chatterjee was moved to many firms. Different entities were created at the instance of Partha Chatterjee to park the proceeds of crime. M/s SKP Enterprises was also opened for the same purpose where an amount of Rs.1,61,09,789/- and Rs. 2,10,75,886/- was found. According to the appellant, an amount of Rs.2,30,00,000/- was transferred by Smt. Sila Das and Ms. Piyali Das, wife and daughter in the account of Prabir Das on sale of the two properties. The amount aforesaid was then transmitted in the bank account of the firm. The counsel for the appellant could not justify transfer of the said amount by Prabir Das in the account of the firm where he was having only 10% stake. It was revealed in the investigation as to how proceeds of crime acquired by Partha Chatterjee, then Minister-in-Charge of Education was circulated by creating many entities which include the appellant firm. The huge amount was siphoned off in the process and transferred to many entities which include transfer of huge amount to establish an English Medium School in the name of M/s BCM International. An amount of Rs.51,00,000/- was transferred by Prabir Das out of the proceeds of cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have been secured by Prabir Das from friends and relatives without giving their description thus source to get Rs.19,00,000/- by the friends and relatives has not been given. Further, transfer of Rs.51,00,000/- also remain without disclosure of source. Reference of borrowing of the aforesaid amount from different sources has been given but it is without naming any person and source. Thus, we find that the appellant has disclosed the source to get Rs.2,30,00,000/- but failed to make disclosure of source for transfer of Rs.24,00,000/- by the father and the other amounts of Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- from the friends and relatives. 20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer the Bank Statements of the appellant firm for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 which is quoted hereunder: "Statement of Account No. 919020026594690 for the period (From 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019) Trans Date Chq No. Particulars Debit Credit Balance Intt. Br. OPENING BALANCE .00 31.10.2019 TRF/PRABIR DAS 100000.00 100000.00 2045 01.11.2019 BY PRABIR DAS 4900000.00 5000000.00 2045 26.11.2019 TRF/PRABIR DAS 4000000.00 9000000.00 2045 04.12.2019 TRF/PRABI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DD Cancln 6495 500000.00 1548684.00 2045 Statement of Account No. 919020026594690 for the period (From 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021) Trans Date Chq No Particulars Debit Credit Balance Intt. Br. OPENING BALANCE 5573134.00 16.01.2021 GST @18% on Charge 18.00 5573116.00 2045 16.01.2021 Consolidated Charges for A/c 100.00 5573016.00 2045 13.02.2021 GST @18% on Charge 18.00 5572998.00 2045 13.02.2021 Consolidated Charges for A/c 100.00 5572898.00 2045 13.03.2021 GST @18% on Charge 54.00 5572844.00 2045 13.03.2021 Consolidated Charges for A/c 300.00 5572544.00 2045 24.03.2021 TRF/PRABIR DAS/transfer 2500000.00 8072544.00 2045 29.03.2021 By Clg.000026 751Kolkata 800000.00 8872544.00 2045 29.03.2021 BRN-OW RTN CLG: REJECT 26:OTHER REASONS (PLEAS SP) 800000.00 8872544.00 2568 30.03.2021 TRF/PRABIR DAS/TRANSFER 2000000.00 10072544.00 2045 31.03.2021 RTGS/PSIBR21090146645/ SREE RAM CONSTRUCTION 990000.00 11062544.00 248 17.04.2021 GST @18% on Charge 36.00 11062508.00 2045 17.04.2021 Consolidated Charges for A/c 200.00 11062308.00 2045 27.04.2021 By Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument has been produced along with the statement of repayments. Further analysis of the bank account would show receipt of huge money from different sources without giving description or the basis to disclose the source. Out of those amounts, the appellant firm has transferred huge amount and it would be relevant that apart from the receipt of the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from Prabir Das on 24.03.2021, another sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 30.03.2021, Shree Ram Construction has given Rs.9,90,000/- while the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was received from other sources without disclosure. Rs.20,00,000/- and 30,00,000/- have been received further without giving the source and it is not shown to be from Prabir Das and on 01.11.2021 the appellant firm received Rs.1,00,500,00/- but the source of the said amount has also not been disclosed. Thus, it is not correct to state that what has been seized in the bank account is the amount transferred by Prabir Das but it is accumulation of the fund received from different sources. The appellant firm was expected to disclose the sources of all the amounts because as against Rs.2,30,00,000/- transferred by Prabir Das, the amount in the said bank account rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
