High Court dismisses challenge to money laundering attachment order, emphasizes jurisdiction.

The High Court of Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court found the petition premature as a show cause notice had been issued, and the matter was pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Emphasizing the need for the authority to address jurisdiction issues independently, the court directed expedited proceedings within statutory timelines, without unnecessary adjournments. The petition was disposed of without costs, instructing compliance with the court's directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against provisional attachment order under PMLA 2002
2. Allegations of siphoning funds by the petitioners
3. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority
4. Prematurity of the writ petition

The High Court of Calcutta addressed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The properties in question were alleged proceeds of crime related to complaints by nationalized and private banks regarding siphoning of Rs. 552 Crores. The petitioners contended that the events leading to the alleged offenses occurred after the acquisition of the properties, and there were typographical errors in documents suggesting suspicious transactions. The court noted that a show cause notice had been issued under Section 8 of the Act, and the matter was pending before the Adjudicating Authority, rendering the writ premature. The petitioners' connection to the accused entities was disputed, and jurisdiction issues were raised concerning the quasi-judicial proceedings. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority needed to address jurisdiction questions, and the petitioners had the remedy of appealing to a Tribunal. The judgment highlighted that decisions cited by the petitioners were not directly relevant as the adjudication process was incomplete in the current case.

The court directed the adjudicating authority to expedite proceedings within the statutory timeline and instructed against unnecessary adjournments. It emphasized that the authority should independently address all raised questions, including jurisdiction, without influence from prior observations. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition without further adjudication, with no order as to costs. All parties were instructed to comply with the court's directives based on a server copy of the order.

---