Tribunal rules in favor of non-resident Indian in property attachment case

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a non-resident Indian, in a case involving the validity of an attachment order for Apartment No. 9A in Kingfisher Towers. The appellant successfully argued that he had purchased the property through legal means and had no involvement in money laundering activities. The tribunal found that the Enforcement Directorate had failed to establish that the appellant's funds were proceeds of crime and had not complied with mandatory statutory requirements. As a result, the attachment order was set aside, and the provisional attachment was quashed, with the tribunal clarifying that its decision only pertained to the attachment order and did not affect other legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the attachment order concerning Apartment No. 9A in Kingfisher Towers.
2. Whether the appellant has committed any offense under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Whether the subject property is proceeds of crime and if the appellant is in possession of proceeds of crime.
4. Compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 8(2) of the PMLA.
5. The impact of other legal proceedings on the current appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Attachment Order:
The appeal was filed against the order dated 01.12.2016, confirming the provisional attachment of Apartment No. 9A in Kingfisher Towers. The appellant, a non-resident Indian, claimed ownership of the property through bona fide purchase, having paid the full consideration through legal banking channels. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached the property alleging it was part of proceeds of crime involving Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

2. Appellant's Involvement in Money Laundering:
The appellant was not named in the FIR or charge sheet and had no prosecution complaint pending against him. The appellant argued that he was not involved in any scheduled offenses and that the source of money used for purchasing the property was clean, paid through the banking system.

3. Proceeds of Crime:
The ED claimed that the property was attached as "value thereof" of proceeds of crime. However, the appellant had vested rights in the property before the attachment. The tribunal noted that the appellant had no link or association with the accused Vijay Mallya and the payment for the property was made through legal channels. The ED failed to establish that the appellant's funds were proceeds of crime.

4. Compliance with Section 8(2) of PMLA:
The appellant was not issued a notice nor given an opportunity to be heard as mandated under Section 8(2) of the PMLA. The tribunal found that the ED and Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement, as the appellant was a bona fide purchaser and should have been given a chance to prove that the property was not involved in money laundering.

5. Impact of Other Legal Proceedings:
The tribunal noted that the appellant had initiated proceedings before the Karnataka High Court for the execution of the sale deed and possession of the property. The tribunal clarified that its decision was limited to the attachment order and did not affect other proceedings, including those before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Special Court.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser who had paid the full consideration for the property through legal means. The attachment order dated 01.12.2016 was set aside, and the provisional attachment was quashed. The tribunal emphasized that its findings were specific to the attachment order and did not impact other pending legal proceedings.

---