2017 (8) TMI 862 - AT - Money Laundering

Tribunal upholds Enforcement Directorate's retention of seized documents & properties under Money Laundering Act

Pearl Infrastructue Project Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing the Enforcement Directorate to retain seized documents and properties under the Prevention ... Prevention of Money Laundering - provisions prescribed under law for retention of the documents/properties - permitting the Enforcement Directorate to retain various documents/computer hardwares seized from different places in terms of Section 17(4) of PMLA - Held that:- The intention of the legislature for retention of documents is to arm the Investigating Authority to find out the truth of the allegations through the evidence collected by way of documents/records including digital records to come to a conclusion. Binding the hands of the Investigating Authority by refusing to retain the documents will not be in the interest of justice. The law has allowed the person from whom records seized or frozen to obtain the copies of record. The appellant has right under law that is section 21(2) PMLA to obtain the copies of records he required. We do not see any prejudice is caused to the appellant in retaining the documents/records seized, in the present case, from its possession. Rather it will obstruct the progress of investigation if the prayer of Enforcement Directorate to retain the documents is disallowed. Admittedly, the case is under investigations. Prima facie there are serious allegation of fraud and the investigation is at crucial stage. So in our considered view, the appellant has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order. There is due compliance of the provision under PMLA relating to retention of the records/documents. No infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the retention order of seized documents and properties under PMLA.2. Compliance with procedural requirements under PMLA.3. Allegations of money laundering and fraudulent activities.4. Principles of Natural Justice and their application.5. Specific objections raised by the appellant regarding errors in the address and description of seized documents.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Retention Order of Seized Documents and Properties under PMLA:The appeal challenges the order dated 21.06.2016 by the Adjudicating Authority, which allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to retain various documents and computer hardware seized from different places under Section 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Adjudicating Authority justified the retention, stating that the documents/properties are involved in money laundering and necessary for adjudication under Section 8 of PMLA. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the retention is crucial for the ongoing investigation.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under PMLA:The Tribunal examined the provisions under Sections 17, 21, and 8 of PMLA, which deal with search, seizure, and retention of documents. Section 17 allows authorized officers to seize records or property if they have reason to believe they are involved in money laundering. Section 21 permits the retention of such records for up to 180 days, extendable by the Adjudicating Authority if required for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority complied with these provisions, as the reasons for retention were recorded and justified.3. Allegations of Money Laundering and Fraudulent Activities:The case involves an investigation into M/s Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. (PACL) and its directors for allegedly cheating and collecting money fraudulently to the tune of Rs. 49,000 crores. The investigation under PMLA was initiated based on an FIR alleging fraudulent activities for collecting money from the public under various schemes. The Tribunal noted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, and the seized documents are necessary to trace the money trail and proceeds of crime.4. Principles of Natural Justice and Their Application:The appellant argued that the non-furnishing of seized documents violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the object of the investigation is the collection of evidence, and the respondents cannot interfere with this process. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. WN Chadha, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice should not obstruct the investigation. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, as the respondents were given sufficient opportunity to present their case.5. Specific Objections Raised by the Appellant Regarding Errors in the Address and Description of Seized Documents:The appellant raised objections regarding errors in the address and non-specific descriptions of seized documents. The Tribunal found these objections trivial and not affecting the case's merits. The appellant's arguments that PIPL (appellant) is an independent entity and not involved in PACL's activities were also dismissed, as the investigation's purpose is to determine involvement in money laundering. The Tribunal emphasized that the retention of documents is necessary for a thorough investigation and does not prejudice the appellant.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that there was due compliance with PMLA provisions, and the retention of documents was justified for the ongoing investigation into serious allegations of fraud and money laundering. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's order.