Appeal on Money Laundering Allegations Kept Pending by Tribunal

The appeal filed by M/s. RAG Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. against allegations of money laundering involving a former bank director was kept in abeyance by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to adjudicate on money laundering offenses and related proceedings, clarifying that the Appellate Tribunal does not possess authority over property confiscation. The appeal will remain pending until the Special Court issues a final decision, aligning with the legal hierarchy established under the Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by M/s. RAG Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. against allegations of money laundering.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating involving a former bank director.
3. Preliminary point raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court under PMLA.
4. Argument regarding the authority of the Appellate Tribunal in relation to confiscation of properties.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by M/s. RAG Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. against allegations of money laundering involving Shri Anup Prakash Garg, a former Director in Andhra Bank. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Mr. Garg received gratification for favoring certain companies during his tenure. The ED claimed that funds received by Mr. Garg were funneled into M/s. RAG Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a company established with his family members as directors.

2. The respondent raised a preliminary point arguing that the case was already before the Special Court under PMLA, and thus, requested to keep the case pending until the Special Court's decision. The appellant contended that the ED failed to establish Mr. Garg's involvement in RAG Buildtech and argued against the attachment of their properties as proceeds of Mr. Garg's alleged crimes.

3. The judgment highlighted the jurisdiction of the Special Court under PMLA, emphasizing that the Special Court has the authority to adjudicate on offenses of money laundering and related proceedings. It was clarified that the Special Court is empowered to order confiscation, release, or restoration of properties involved in money laundering, and the Appellate Tribunal does not possess similar powers in this regard.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling reaffirming that offenses under PMLA and scheduled offenses connected to them are triable by the Special Court. The judgment emphasized the procedural steps under PMLA, indicating that property attachment by the adjudicating authority must be confirmed, and final decisions regarding confiscation or release of properties lie within the Special Court's jurisdiction.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to keep the appeal in abeyance until the Special Court's final disposition of the case. Both parties were directed to notify the Tribunal upon the Special Court's pronouncement of the final order, aligning with the legal framework and hierarchy established under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

---