2021 (1) TMI 1187 - HC - Money Laundering

Court dismisses petition to quash complaint under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Mohana @ Mohanammal, B. Nirmala, S. Devibala Versus The Assistant Director, The Directorate of Enforcement Government of India

The court dismissed the criminal original petition seeking to quash a complaint in C.C.No.41 of 2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. ... Money Laundering - smuggling of Gold - framing of charges under the PML Act - HELD THAT:- It cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials against the accused for framing charges under the PML Act. This Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This criminal original petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court after the charges are framed. Issues:1. Quashing of complaint in C.C.No.41 of 2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.Analysis:The judgment involves a criminal original petition seeking to quash a complaint in C.C.No.41 of 2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case originated from a search conducted by the Inspector of Police at a specific premises, leading to the seizure of cash, Fixed Deposit Receipts, and gold. Subsequently, arrests were made, and the case was altered to include various criminal charges. The Enforcement Directorate took over the investigation and initiated a prosecution under the PML Act against the accused. The petitioners argued that there was no nexus between the seized amounts and criminal activities, emphasizing the absence of complaints. However, the Additional Solicitor General countered this by highlighting the alteration of the case based on credible information and the statements recorded under the PML Act.The judgment delves into the statements provided by the accused, revealing details of their involvement in criminal activities, including extortion, illegal money transactions, and threats. The accused admitted to their roles in the illicit activities, explaining the sources of the seized assets and their modus operandi. The court considered these statements as prima facie evidence, indicating a strong case for framing charges under the PML Act. It emphasized that disputed factual questions are not within the purview of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal original petition, allowing the petitioner to raise their arguments before the trial court after the framing of charges. The judgment underscores the importance of considering available evidence and legal procedures in determining the validity of criminal complaints under the PML Act.