Tribunal overturns property attachment order, citing violation of natural justice

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of provisional attachment of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, citing a violation of natural justice principles due to the appellant being in judicial custody and unable to defend himself. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority, granting the appellant three weeks to file a reply. Additionally, the Tribunal directed that both the current case and another related matter concerning the remaining 65% of the same property be decided together, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with an opportunity to defend his case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of misuse of power and acceptance of illegal gratification.
2. Provisional attachment of property under PMLA.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of evidence and statements recorded under duress.
5. Requirement of "proceeds of crime" for attachment under PMLA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Misuse of Power and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification:
The appellant, an IAS officer, faced multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 9 of 2010 and FIR No. 3 of 2010, alleging misuse of power by allotting land to Welspun group at rates significantly lower than the market rate, causing a loss of Rs. 1.20 crores to the public exchequer. Additionally, it was alleged that the appellant accepted illegal gratification in the form of payment of mobile bills amounting to Rs. 2.20 lakhs.

2. Provisional Attachment of Property Under PMLA:
The Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR/01/AZO/2012 based on the FIRs and initiated investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant's property, specifically 35% of a house in Gandhinagar, was provisionally attached under PAO No. 11/2014. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment order in the absence of the appellant's reply, leading to the current appeal.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles, as he was in judicial custody during the proceedings and unable to present his case. Despite writing to the Adjudicating Authority seeking time, the order was passed ex-parte. The appellant contended that there was sufficient time for the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the provisional attachment order and that the matter was decided without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.

4. Validity of Evidence and Statements Recorded Under Duress:
The appellant challenged the validity of evidence, specifically the statements of Mr. Sunil Milak, claiming they were recorded under duress. The respondent countered that the statements were corroborated by bank statements and other documents, and there was no force in the allegation of duress. The appellant also argued that the prosecution misused witnesses to create evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in Mr. Milak's statements.

5. Requirement of "Proceeds of Crime" for Attachment Under PMLA:
The appellant argued that the property in question could not be termed as "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. He asserted that the amount transferred to his wife's account was a legitimate share of profit from a partnership firm and not the outcome of any criminal activity. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority erred in confirming the provisional attachment order without sufficient evidence of the property being "proceeds of crime."

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed, as the appellant was in judicial custody and unable to defend himself. The Adjudicating Authority had 74 days left before the statutory deadline and could have granted the appellant an opportunity to file a reply. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, allowing the appellant to file a reply within three weeks. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant for an incorrect statement in the appeal.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting an opportunity to the appellant to defend his case, particularly when the proceedings related to the remaining 65% of the same property were pending. The Tribunal directed that both matters be decided together by the Adjudicating Authority.

---